10. The House of Lords

2019 ◽  
pp. 207-228
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett

This chapter studies the House of Lords. The membership of the House of Lords largely relies on patronage. Members of the Lords come from a variety of backgrounds with wide-ranging expertise, and are appointed by the Queen on the Prime Minister's advice. They can be nominated by political parties, by the public, or by themselves. The House of Lords is an important revising and scrutinising chamber, but it is also subordinate to the democratically elected House of Commons. The Lords' main functions are scrutinising and challenging the government, investigating and debating issues of public interest, and scrutinising and revising legislation. While it respects the primacy of the Commons, the House of Lords is also a check on constitutional change by the Commons. The chapter then looks at the Parliament Act 1911, which established the Commons' primacy over the House of Lords.

2021 ◽  
pp. 207-242
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett

This chapter explores the role and membership of Parliament’s two chambers, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the operation of parliamentary privilege; and accountability of members. The key functions of Parliament include controlling national expenditure and taxation; sustaining the government; legislating and scrutinising government actions. The House of Commons is the pre-eminent chamber and dominates Parliament. The Commons’ membership consists of Members of Parliament (MPs) who are democratically elected by the public to represent their interests in Parliament. The membership of the House of Lords largely relies on patronage. Members of the Lords are appointed by the Queen on the Prime Minister’s advice. The House of Lords is an important revising and scrutinising chamber, and while it is subordinate to the democratically elected House of Commons, it is also a check on constitutional change by the Commons. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 redefined the Lords’ legislative powers over public bills and established the Commons’ primacy. The chapter then considers the operation of parliamentary privilege. Parliament needs parliamentary privilege to conduct its core business effectively, independently, and without fear of outside interference, and to protect everything said or done in the transaction of parliamentary business. Indeed, Parliament is self-regulating and, as a sovereign body, operates outside the jurisdiction of the courts except for the criminal law. Each House has its own standards of conduct and disciplinary powers which ensure accountability.


Author(s):  
Meg Russell ◽  
Daniel Gover

This chapter explores the various means by which specialist select committees in both the House of Commons and House of Lords interact with and influence government legislation. The development of select committees is widely seen as important at Westminster, having encouraged greater expertise and specialization among members, and cross-party work. Yet the select committees have only a limited formal role in the legislative process, because the ‘committee stage’ occurs elsewhere. Nonetheless, this chapter shows extensive select committee influence on the 12 case study bills. The committees can be important to setting the policy agenda, informing members, influencing debate, encouraging amendments, and—potentially—supporting the government. This particularly applies to the constitutional committees in the House of Lords, and select committees conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills. However, other committees can also be important, as demonstrated by the Commons Health Committee’s intervention over the smoking ban in the Health Bill (2005–06).


Glasnik prava ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-117
Author(s):  
Stefan Milić

The administration occupies an extremely important place in the everyday life of citizens. The essential elements of administration are organization, competence, control and responsibility. Given that the contact of citizens with the work of the administration is inevitable and that this work is based on rules that must apply, the question arises who can control compliance with and implementation of these rules. There are two types of administrative control: legal and political. This second form of control, political control, is the topic of this paper. It analyzes which entities can control the expediency of the work of administrative bodies and the compliance of that work with the public interest. The paper presents the instruments of control used by active subjects when assessing expediency. These instruments are: parliamentary question, interpellation, vote of no confidence in the Government or an individual member of the Government, formation of inquiry committees and commissions. These instruments are used in order to control the administration by the highest representative body, ie the parliament. There will also be talks about the possibility of controlling the work of the administration by public opinion and political parties.


2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-544
Author(s):  
A.T.H. Smith

Once upon a time, the Crown faced almost no difficulties in securing convictions for breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911, particularly section 2. After the somewhat embarrassing decision to proceed had been taken, it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Occasionally, the jury revolted, as they did in Ponting [1985] Crim. L.R. 315, producing something like a perverse verdict in the face of the judicial direction that it was no defence that the defendant believed himself to be acting in the public interest. That decision, and the ruling of the House of Lords in the Spycatcher litigation [1990] 1 A.C. 109 to the effect that the former security service agent Peter Wright did not commit an actionable breach of confidence by making his allegations of improper practices within the services, prompted the government of the day to promote legislation that purported to impose life-long obligations of confidence upon members and former members of the security intelligence services. “Purported” because, with the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is now open to the courts inter alia to declare that Parliament has acted incompatibly with one of the rights protected by that Act.


1914 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Brown Scott

Two projects for the creation of an international prize court were laid before the Second Hague Peace Conference on the same day (June 22, 1907) one by the German and one by the British delegation. The United States at the time and France later warmly approved the proposed institution, and a joint project in the nature of a compromise was drafted and presented to the Conference by the four Powers, which, after much debate, prolonged discussion, opposition on the part of some delegations and hesitation on the part of others, was adopted with some amendments by the Conference and forms what is known as the Convention Relative to the Establishment of an International Prize Court of October 18,1907. Although signed by thirty-three Powers, the court contemplated by the convention has not been established by reason, it would seem, of objections raised by Great Britain to Article 7 of the convention, to remedy which a conference of leading maritime nations was called by Great Britain to agree upon important principles of law to be applied by the court, when constituted, in the decision of certain classes of prize cases. In this conference, known as the International Naval Conference, held at London from December 4, 1908, to February 26, 1909, representatives of Germany, the United States, Austria-Hungary, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Russia, and Spain participated. An agreement, called the Declaration of London, dated February 26,1909, upon the principles of law to be applied by the proposed court, in accordance with Article 7 of the original convention, was reached. Like the original convention, it was also in the nature of a compromise. It met with the approval of the British Government, for it was signed by the delegates of that government acting under instructions, as is the wont of diplomatic conferences, and it seemed at the time that it removed the objections to the ratification of the original convention and to the establishment of the Prize Court in so far as Great Britain was concerned. The government considered it satisfactory and introduced a bill in both Houses of Parliament, modifying British practice in such a way as to meet the requirements of the Prize Court Convention, as modified by the Declaration of London. It passed the House of Commons, but failed in the House of Lords, owing to the unexpected, bitter and persistent opposition on the part of the public, so that the government has up to the spring of 1914 ratified neither the Hague Convention nor the Declaration of London. The signatories of the original convention and of the Declaration have waited, and are still waiting, for favorable action by Great Britain upon these two international documents, apparently unwilling to create the International Prize Court without the co-operation of Great Britain, and to bind themselves by the provisions of the Declaration framed by a conference called by Great Britain to meet British objections, unless it be ratified by Great Britain. The establishment of the Prize Court, therefore, is thus made to depend upon the action of Great Britain.


2019 ◽  
pp. 181-206
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett

This chapter explores the membership and functions of the House of Commons. The Commons' membership consists of Members of Parliament (MPs) who are democratically elected by the public to represent their interests in Parliament. The key functions of the House of Commons include sustaining the government; legislating and scrutinising government actions; authorising taxes and voting for supply to provide the government with the finances it needs to run the UK; facilitating a credible opposition; and ensuring that the voices of citizens are heard. The chapter then considers the operation of Parliamentary privilege. Parliament needs parliamentary privilege to conduct its core business effectively, independently, and without fear of outside interference, and to protect everything said or done in the transaction of parliamentary business. Indeed, Parliament is self-regulating and, as a sovereign body, operates outside the jurisdiction of the courts except for the criminal law.


Author(s):  
Ben Worthy

This chapter examines the legislative process in Parliament. A wide but fragile alliance sought to strengthen the bill but was caught between the desire to move the policy in a more radical direction and the fear that the government would drop the bill that, after all, attracted little electoral support. The FOI bill reached Parliament following two highly regarded committee investigations in House of Commons and Lords. The government faced an increasingly assertive and expert alliance of Parliamentarians in both houses seeking a ‘stronger’ law, supported by campaigns by the national media. The government foresaw a difficult passage (Straw 2012). The government veto power was weakened and clauses made for better balancing tests when decisions to release were even. An ‘ultimate’ confrontation was foreseen for the final House of Lords stage when a cross-party grouping of Peers appeared set to hold out for a much stronger piece of legislation. However, amid rumours FOI would be dropped and behind-the-scenes deals, the alliance in the House of Lords was forced to choose between losing the bill and having a slightly improved Act on the statute books. The FOI bill was then finally subject to an abrupt, curtailed final debate in the Commons.


1976 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-34
Author(s):  
Jess Stoddart Flemion

The growth of an opposition party in the House of Commons is a primary reason given for the altered distribution of power within the government of England in the early seventeenth century. While historians are not unaware that opposition also emerged in the Upper Chamber of Parliament, little serious investigation of this phenomena has been undertaken since it has not been viewed as essential to an explanation of the growing constitutional crisis within England. Consequently, the nature and extent of noble dissidence continues to be a subject of vague generalization including no small amount of contradictory assumptions and conclusions. The traditional interpretation may be termed the “personalist” view of opposition in the House of Lords and has been dominant at least since Samuel Rawson Gardiner's massive study of England in the early seventeenth century. This explanation, which still prevails among historians, asserts that opposition was based on little more than personal rivalries and jealousies over power and status among the members of the peerage. Indeed it is argued that monarchs encouraged “government by division” as a major weapon in the maintenance of their own authority. Those who view noble opposition in this manner usually assert that it had no important ideological or philosophical underpinnings, little continuity or organization of the type associated with the rise of opposition in the Commons, and minimal constitutional impact and significance.


1984 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 127-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Bluglass

The role played by the House of Commons in the legislative process has been steadily changing since the Reform Acts of the nineteenth century. Previously, most of the Commons' legislative work consisted in passing private measures initiated and introduced by individual Members of Parliament concerned with, and knowledgeable about, local issues which required change. The growth of an increasingly vocal and educated mass electorate, the pressures of mass-membership political parties, and the increasing specialization of an industrial society, all increased the need for wider legislation, particularly for public social measures, and its initiation passed from the hands of individual members to the Government Parliament as a law-making body moved towards a more formal constitutional and legal role. Its twentieth century task is more often the legitimation of legislative changes originating elsewhere.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gagah Yaumiyya Riyoprakoso ◽  
AM Hasan Ali ◽  
Fitriyani Zein

This study is based on the legal responsibility of the assessment of public appraisal reports they make in land procurement activities for development in the public interest. Public assessment is obliged to always be accountable for their assessment. The type of research found in this thesis is a type of normative legal research with the right-hand of the statue approach and case approach. Normative legal research is a study that provides systematic explanation of rules governing a certain legal category, analyzing the relationship between regulations explaining areas of difficulty and possibly predicting future development. . After conducting research, researchers found that one of the causes that made the dispute was a lack of communication conducted between the Government and the landlord. In deliberation which should be the place where the parties find the meeting point between the parties on the magnitude of the damages that will be given, in the field is often used only for the delivery of the assessment of the compensation that has been done.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document