Revision Library

revisionlibrary.co.uk

A-Level · UK Government

POL.UKG11 The Comparative Powers of the Commons and Lords, and Lords Reform

EDEXCEL 9PL0 · Calculators not allowed · about 75 minutes

Total Marks

Name: _______________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______

Answer ALL questions. Short answer questions may be brief phrases; the two levels-marked questions require full sentence answers and developed argument. The source-based 12-mark question must be answered using the material in the source provided within the prompt.

This question concerns the Parliament Act 1911 and its core effect on the House of Lords in relation to the Commons.

(Total for Question 1 is 1 mark)

This question concerns the Parliament Act 1949 and how it modified the legislative delay allowed to the House of Lords.

(Total for Question 2 is 1 mark)

This question tests knowledge of the Commons financial privilege as used against the Lords.

(Total for Question 3 is 2 marks)

This question concerns the Salisbury Convention and its practical effect on the House of Lords since the post-war period.

(Total for Question 4 is 2 marks)

This question asks about a statutory innovation affecting peers introduced by the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.

(Total for Question 5 is 4 marks)

This question concerns proposals to make the second chamber partly or wholly elected and one common argument in favour.

(Total for Question 6 is 4 marks)

This question concerns one argument against a fully elected second chamber based on the need for a revising, not rival, chamber.

(Total for Question 7 is 6 marks)

This question is about the continuing role of hereditary peers and bishops in the House of Lords and one practical criticism linked to chamber size.

(Total for Question 8 is 5 marks)

Source for question 9: Extract from a parliamentary briefing note, 2023, summarising arguments on electing the Lords. 'Proponents of an elected second chamber argue that election would enhance democratic legitimacy and accountability, making the chamber answerable to voters, while critics warn that an elected chamber could produce competing democratic mandates and increase confrontation with the House of Commons. Some suggest a hybrid model, combining appointment for expertise with elections for democratic input.' Using this source and your knowledge of UK practice, evaluate the claim that electing the House of Lords would necessarily improve democratic legitimacy without increasing conflict with the House of Commons. Refer to the source in your answer.

(Total for Question 9 is 12 marks)

This question asks you to explain how the Parliament Acts procedure allows the House of Commons to bypass the Lords for most public bills once timing requirements are met.

(Total for Question 10 is 6 marks)

Evaluate the view that the House of Lords should be replaced with a fully elected chamber.

(Total for Question 11 is 30 marks)

Mark scheme · POL.UKG11 The Comparative Powers of the Commons and Lords, and Lords Reform

Question 1

B1 states that the Parliament Act 1911 removed the Lords power to permanently veto most Commons bills, replacing it with a suspensive veto
Answer: It removed the Lords power of absolute veto for most Commons bills, replacing it with a suspensive veto.

Question 2

B1 states that the 1949 Act reduced the Lords suspensive delay from two years to one year
Answer: It reduced the Lords suspensive delay from two years to one year for most public bills.

Question 3

B1 identifies that the Lords cannot block money and finance bills passed by the Commons
B1 explains that this privilege ensures the elected chamber controls taxation and public spending
Answer: The Commons has financial privilege so the Lords may not block or delay money bills; this ensures the elected chamber controls taxation and public spending.

Question 4

B1 states that the Salisbury Convention means the Lords will not block government manifesto commitments
B1 briefly explains it was an informal convention arising after 1945 to respect the Commons electoral mandate
Answer: The Salisbury Convention is the informal agreement that the Lords will not block legislation implementing the governing party's manifesto commitments, developed after 1945 to respect the Commons electoral mandate.

Question 5

B1 identifies that the 2014 Act allowed peers to retire permanently
B1 identifies that the 2014 Act allowed peers to be expelled for non-attendance or serious misconduct
B1 states that the Act did not remove the remaining hereditary peers
B1 states that the Act introduced other modernising measures, eg clarifying resignation procedures
Answer: The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 allowed peers to retire permanently and provided for expulsion of peers for non-attendance or serious criminal or ethical misconduct; it clarified resignation procedures but did not abolish hereditary peers.

Question 6

B1 identifies a reform proposal, eg a fully elected or part-elected House of Lords
B1 identifies one argument in favour, eg increased democratic legitimacy
B1 develops the argument, eg elected peers would have an electoral mandate making scrutiny more democratic
B1 offers a brief example or consequence, eg could reduce public criticism of an unelected chamber
Answer: A common reform proposal is to replace the Lords with a fully elected chamber or to make it partly elected. An argument in favour is increased democratic legitimacy, since elected peers would hold a popular mandate which could make their legislative scrutiny and vetoes more politically defensible and reduce criticism of an unelected chamber.

Question 7

B1 identifies the argument that an appointed or partly appointed chamber can act as an independent revising body
B1 explains that an elected chamber might claim a popular mandate and seek to rival the Commons
B1 develops the consequence, eg increased inter-chamber conflict and legislative gridlock
B1 gives an example or clarification, eg concerns about a second chamber making competing manifesto claims
B1 identifies a constitutional safeguard that might be lost, eg the Salisbury Convention loses force with an elected chamber
B1 links to the Commons primacy principle, noting potential tensions
Answer: One argument against a fully elected second chamber is that the Lords should be a non-rival revising body. If it were fully elected it might claim its own popular mandate and seek to challenge the Commons, increasing inter-chamber conflict and legislative gridlock, and undermining conventions like the Salisbury Convention that rely on the Lords accepting the Commons electoral mandate. This could weaken the principle of Commons primacy instead of providing collegial scrutiny.

Question 8

B1 states that 92 hereditary peers remain as a result of the 1999 compromise
B1 states that 26 bishops of the Church of England sit as Lords Spiritual
B1 identifies the criticism that the Lords is very large, with around 800 peers as of recent years
B1 explains a practical problem caused by size, eg difficulties in committee allocation, cost, or public confidence
B1 links how hereditary and ecclesiastical membership feed into size and questions of representativeness
Answer: The House still contains 92 hereditary peers retained after the 1999 reforms and 26 bishops (Lords Spiritual) from the Church of England. A frequent practical criticism is the chamber's large size, often around 800 peers in recent years, which causes problems for committee allocation, administrative cost, and public confidence in the chamber's legitimacy; the presence of hereditary peers and bishops contributes to debates about representativeness and appropriateness of membership.

Question 9

Level 0 (0): No relevant content.
Level 1 (1-3): Basic, limited use of the source and weak or inaccurate knowledge about Lords reform. Points, if present, are descriptive and not evaluated.
Level 2 (4-6): Use of the source combined with some accurate knowledge; describes arguments for and against electing the Lords but with limited analysis of whether election would both improve legitimacy and avoid conflict.
Level 3 (7-9): Good use of the source and wider knowledge to analyse the claim; considers both how election could increase legitimacy and how it might create competing mandates, offering some evaluation.
Level 4 (10-12): Excellent, well-developed evaluation using the source and strong, relevant knowledge; balances reasons why election could enhance legitimacy against realistic risks of increased Commons-Lords conflict, and reaches a substantiated judgement that addresses the 'necessarily' in the question.
Indicative content:
- The source correctly identifies the main arguments: election would improve democratic legitimacy because voters could sanction or reward second chamber members, increasing accountability.
- Electing members could increase democratic legitimacy by reducing critiques that the chamber is elitist or unrepresentative, and by giving the public a clearer mechanism to hold peers to account.
- However, election also risks creating competing democratic mandates: an elected second chamber might claim legitimacy in areas of policy and assert the right to block Commons decisions, increasing conflict.
- Historical and comparative evidence: bicameral systems with two elected chambers, such as some US states or federal systems, often experience inter-chamber tension; the UK principle of Commons primacy could be tested by an elected Lords.
- A hybrid model might mitigate trade offs by retaining appointed experts to ensure quality of scrutiny while introducing elected elements for democratic input, but hybrids bring complexity and potential tensions over selection and mandate.
- Practical design matters: electoral system, term lengths, whether the Lords could block or only delay legislation, and whether conventions like the Salisbury Convention would survive; these can reduce or exacerbate conflict.
- The word 'necessarily' is important: election could improve legitimacy, but it does not necessarily avoid conflict. Whether conflict increases depends on design choices and on political culture and restraint by the chambers.
- A balanced judgement: electing the Lords is likely to raise democratic legitimacy, but unless carefully designed to protect Commons primacy and manage mandates, it is likely to increase inter-chamber conflict; therefore the claim that election would necessarily improve legitimacy without increasing conflict is not supported.

Question 10

Level 0 (0): No relevant content.
Level 1 (1-2): Basic, limited description of the Parliament Acts process with inaccuracies or missing steps.
Level 2 (3-4): Clear description of the main stages and timing required under the Parliament Acts, but with limited analysis of implications.
Level 3 (5-6): Detailed, accurate explanation of the procedure and its implications for Commons-Lords relations, including timing, types of bills excluded, and practical consequences.
Indicative content:
- Under the Parliament Acts the Commons can present the same public bill in two successive sessions without the Lords consenting; if the Lords still refuses, the bill can be presented for Royal Assent without the Lords' consent after the required interval.
- Timing specifics: following the 1949 Act, the delay is effectively one parliamentary session in practice, meaning a bill rejected by the Lords in one session can be reintroduced and, if passed again, sent for Royal Assent the next session, subject to specified notice and procedure.
- Money bills are treated differently: a money bill certified by the Speaker can become law if not passed by the Lords within one month, reflecting Commons financial privilege.
- The Acts exclude certain types of bills, for example, bills extending the life of Parliament beyond five years are excluded, and the Acts do not apply to private bills.
- Implications: the mechanism preserves Commons primacy while allowing the Lords a revising and delaying role; in practice the Acts are used rarely because the threat of use influences Lords behaviour and because political costs of forcing a bill without Lords' consent can be high.

Question 11

Level 0 (0): No relevant content.
Level 1 (1-7): Basic, limited knowledge of the debates about Lords reform. Argument is mainly descriptive and lacks clear analysis or evaluation.
Level 2 (8-15): Clear knowledge of arguments for and against a fully elected chamber with some analysis; evaluation is present but may be uneven or one sided. Some relevant examples or reform proposals are used.
Level 3 (16-23): Detailed and accurate knowledge used to construct a sustained analysis that weighs advantages and disadvantages of a fully elected second chamber. Evaluation engages with constitutional implications and reaches a supported judgement.
Level 4 (24-30): Sophisticated, wide-ranging knowledge of reform proposals and consequences used to produce a tightly argued, balanced evaluation. Precise examples, comparative evidence and consideration of design options are used to reach a well-substantiated and nuanced judgement.
Indicative content:
- Arguments in favour: a fully elected chamber would have clear democratic legitimacy and accountability to voters, improving democratic credentials and public trust; electoral competition could make peers more accountable for scrutiny and representation.
- Arguments in favour continued: elections could diversify representation and potentially correct perceived biases in the appointed Lords; a fixed term and electoral cycle could professionalise the chamber and clarify mandates.
- Arguments against: a fully elected chamber risks creating competing democratic mandates with the Commons, threatening Commons primacy and producing legislative deadlock, particularly if different parties control each chamber.
- Arguments against continued: elected peers might behave politically like MPs, reducing the independence and expertise that appointed or crossbench peers provide; the revising, specialist role of the Lords could be weakened.
- Design and mitigation: hybrid models or limited electoral reforms (part-elected chamber, staggered terms, different electoral system, no power to veto but only to delay) can attempt to combine legitimacy with non-rivalry, but bring complexity and unclear political consequences.
- Practical considerations: the scale of reform, transitional arrangements, cost, and impacts on conventions such as the Salisbury Convention; the existing presence of hereditary peers and bishops raises questions about representativeness that a full election would resolve but at the cost of tradition.
- Comparative evidence: some bicameral democracies with two elected chambers experience inter-chamber conflict; overall institutional design and political culture matter more than the simple fact of election.
- Judgement guidance: a balanced conclusion might accept that election would improve legitimacy but argue that it should not be implemented without safeguards to protect the Commons primacy and the chamber's revising function; alternatively, conclude that a carefully designed hybrid could offer a better balance than full election.

The Comparative Powers of the Commons and Lords, and Lords Reform - Worksheets, Questions and Revision