Reforming Parliament

Created by: belle-madeleine
Created on: 27-08-17 19:33

View mindmap

Reforming Parliament
- Reforming the House of Commons
  - Commons Reform Under Blair
    - 1997 and 2007
    - Affected the Lords
    - Once-a-week Prime Minister's Questions
      - 1997
      - Halved the number of occasions that the prime minster stood before the commons
    - Liaison Committee scrutiny
      - 2002
      - Twice a year the prime minster appears before the committee
      - Scrutinised by senior, experienced and expert backbenchers
    - Freedom of Information Act
      - 2000
      - Easier access to government information
    - Wider constitutional reforms
      - Devolution
        Responsibility for domestic legislation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is in hands of devolved bodies
      - Human Rights Act
        Courts have to protect individual rights
      - Referendums
        People have control over constitutional reforms
  - Commons Reform Under Brown
    - Parliament would be consulted on the power to declare war, dissolve Parliament, recall of Parliament, ratify treaties, choose bishops and appoint judges
    - House of Commons Reform Committee
  - Commons Reform Under Cameron and Clegg
    - Fixed-term Parliaments
      - Prevents prime minsters from calling general elections at favourable times
      - Reduces the size of government majorities
      - Changes of government more frequent
    - Referendum on AV
      - Rejected in 2011
      - Boost representation for third parties
      - More hung Parliaments
    - Recall of MPs
      - A recall petition can be triggered if an MP is sentenced to prison or suspended from the Commons for at least 21 sitting days
      - A by-election would then follow if the petition is signed by at least 10% of eligible voters
    - Public initiated bills
      - Ability to suggest topics for debate through e-petitions that secure at least 100,000 signatures
    - Public reading stage
      - Giving the public an opportunity to comment on proposed legislation online
    - Backbench business committee
      - 2010
      - Determines the business before the House for one day a week
- Reforming the Lords
  - The Defects of the "Unreformed" Lords
    - The majority of peers were heredity
    - The Lords exhibited a strong and consistent bias in favour of the Conservative party
  - Stage 1: Reform of the Lords
    - Stage one was to remove hereditary peers
      - Stage two was to replace the House of Lords with a revised second chamber
        The Wakeham Commission was set up to propose stage two reform
        In 2000, they recommended having an appointed second chamber
        Minority of peers elected
        
        Wide-range opposition
        
        Joint Committee of both Houses was given the task of developing the proposal
        In 2002, they presented seven options
        Wholly appointed
        
        Wholly elected
        
        All options were rejected
        
        Jack Straw placed nine proposals for reform in 2007
        He gained approval from the retention of a bicameral parliament to the removal of the remaining hereditary peers
        No legislation emerged
        
        Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition
        They wanted to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected second chamber
        
        The cross-party committee was chaired by Nick Clegg and was charged with developing a draft bill by 2010
        It didn't emerge until 2011
        
        It failed
      - Hereditary peers were reduced from 777 to 92
      - The removal of these peers and the appointment of Labour life peers rid Conservative bias
  - The Future Second Chamber?
    - An elected second chamber
    - An appointed second chamber
      - Or a combination of the two
        An elected second chamber
- Bicameralism
  - Practice of breaking up legislative power through the creation of two chambers
  - Partial bicameralism
    - Two chambers that are unequal
    - Second chamber has restricted popular authority or because it has reduced legislative power
  - Full bicameralism
    - Two co-equal legislative chambers
- For or Against an Elected Second Chamber?
  - For
    - Democratic legitimacy
      - Popular consent delivered through competitive elections
    - Wider representation
      - Two elected chambers would widen the basis for representation
    - Better legislation
      - Popular authority would encourage the second chamber to exercise greater powers of legislative oversight and scruitiny
    - Checking the commons
      - Only an elected chamber can properly check another elected chamber
    - Ending executive tyranny
  - Against
    - Specialist knowledge
      - Chosen on the basis of their experience, expertise and specialist knowledge
    - Gridlocked government
      - Two co-equal chambers would be a recipe for government paralysis
    - Complementary chambers
      - Can carry out different roles and functions
    - Dangers of partisanship
    - Descriptive representation
      - Elected peers may have popular authority but it is very difficult to ensure they resemble larger society
An appointed second chamber
- Or a combination of the two

Get Revising

Reforming Parliament

Comments

Similar Government & Politics resources: