Comparative Powers of the House of Commons & House of Lords

Parliament is at the heart of the United Kingdom’s political system, comprising two chambers: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. While both play significant roles in the process of legislation, scrutiny, and government accountability, their powers are far from identical. The relationship between the two chambers is shaped by both statute and constitutional convention, with the House of Commons wielding greater authority in most legislative matters. This essay explores the comparative powers of the Commons and Lords, the exclusive powers of the Commons, the main powers of the Lords, and considers the ongoing debate about the appropriate balance of power between the two Houses.

The Comparative Powers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords

The UK Parliament is bicameral, with the Commons and Lords each contributing to the passage of laws, scrutiny of government, and representation of interests. However, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the evolution of constitutional practice mean that the elected House of Commons holds supremacy over the unelected House of Lords.

The Commons is the pre-eminent chamber, directly elected by the UK public and thus imbued with democratic legitimacy. As a result, the Government is formed from Members of Parliament (MPs) in the Commons, and it is to the Commons that the Government is accountable. The Lords, while an important revising chamber, generally acts as a reviser, delaying body, and expert forum, rather than the primary seat of power.

Statutes such as the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 have codified the limitations on the Lords’ powers, ensuring that in cases of conflict, the will of the Commons ultimately prevails. Nevertheless, the Lords retains significant influence, particularly in the scrutiny and revision of legislation.

The Exclusive Powers of the House of Commons

Some powers reside entirely with the Commons, underpinning its superiority within Parliament:

• Financial Privilege: The House of Commons has the exclusive right to initiate, amend, or reject 'money bills', which concern taxation or public expenditure. The Lords cannot amend money bills nor can it block them; it must either accept or reject them in full, and convention dictates acceptance. This is set out in the Parliament Acts and reinforced by constitutional convention.
• Formation of Government: Only the Commons can give or withhold confidence in the Government. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are drawn from the Commons (with very few exceptions), and a government must command the confidence of the Commons to remain in office.
• Approval of Supply: The Commons controls supply (the provision of funds to government), giving it ultimate control over government expenditure and the power to effectively ‘shut down’ government activity by refusing supply.
• Ultimate Legislative Authority: In case of conflict between the two Houses, particularly on matters of policy, the Commons’ wishes take precedence, as set out in the Parliament Acts. If a public bill is rejected by the Lords in two successive sessions, the Commons may present it for Royal Assent without Lords’ approval (save for money bills, which cannot be blocked at all).

The Main Powers of the House of Lords

Despite its secondary role, the House of Lords wields important powers and functions within the UK’s legislative process:

• Legislative Revision: The Lords acts as a revising chamber, scrutinising and suggesting amendments to legislation passed by the Commons. It often focuses on the detail of bills, drawing on the expertise of its members, many of whom are specialists in their fields.
• Delaying Power: While the Lords cannot permanently block public bills (except in rare cases), it can delay legislation for up to one year under the Parliament Acts. This provides an important check, allowing for further scrutiny and possible public or political reconsideration.
• Secondary Legislation: The Lords reviews statutory instruments and other forms of secondary legislation, sometimes voting to delay or reject them, though conventionally it is cautious about doing so.
• Debate and Expertise: The Lords is widely regarded as a forum for expert, considered debate. Its members include former judges, academics, civil servants, and distinguished individuals from various professions, which gives the chamber a reputation for expertise and independence.
• Initiation and Amendment of Legislation: The Lords can introduce and amend non-money public bills, including private members' bills, some of which have initiated significant social reforms.

Debates about the Relative Power of the Two Houses

The relative power of the Commons and the Lords is a constant subject of debate in British constitutional politics. Several themes characterise this debate:

The Case for Commons Supremacy

Democratic Legitimacy: The principal argument in favour of Commons supremacy is its status as the elected chamber. MPs are accountable to the electorate, conferring a mandate that legitimises their decisions. The Lords, by contrast, is unelected and largely appointed, raising questions about its right to block or amend government policy.

Government Accountability: The government is directly answerable to the Commons. Only the Commons can dismiss a government through a vote of no confidence, reflecting its central role in the UK’s system of responsible government.

The Case for a Strong Lords

Quality of Scrutiny and Revision: The Lords is valued for its expertise and independence from the party-political pressures that dominate the Commons. It frequently improves legislation through detailed scrutiny and amendment, sometimes correcting flaws or oversights missed by the Commons.

Check on Majoritarianism: The Lords acts as a constitutional safeguard, preventing the “elective dictatorship” that can arise from large Commons majorities. By delaying and revising legislation, it helps ensure that laws are carefully considered and not simply passed by government fiat.

Concerns about Legitimacy and Reform

Critics argue that the undemocratic nature of the Lords undermines its legitimacy, and proposals for reform are often debated, including the possibility of an elected second chamber. Others fear that making the Lords elective would politicise it, undermining its strengths as a revising chamber.

Moreover, the conventions that govern the relationship between the two Houses are sometimes contested. Disputes occasionally arise, for example, over the boundaries of financial privilege, or the Lords’ role in secondary legislation.

Recent Developments

Recent years have seen the Lords challenge the government over issues such as Brexit, welfare reform, and constitutional matters. While its defeats are usually temporary, the Lords’ willingness to scrutinise and amend government bills has sometimes provoked controversy, raising renewed questions about its powers and the balance between the chambers.

Summary

The relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords is defined by a combination of law, convention, and evolving political practice. The Commons is clearly the dominant chamber, controlling government, supply, and finance, and ultimately determining the fate of most legislation. However, the Lords performs a vital revising, delaying, and scrutinising role, improving the quality of legislation and providing a forum for expert debate. The ongoing debate about the balance of power between the two Houses reflects the broader tension in the UK’s unwritten constitution between democratic legitimacy and effective scrutiny ensuring that Parliament remains both representative and responsible.