The government’s reform of the Lords heralds the end of constitutionally-enshrined aristocratic government in Britain.

What is the House of Lords?

The House of Lords is one part of the ancient triumvirate in the British constitution, which also includes the monarchy and the Commons. Representing the interests of the aristocracy, the lords historically combined with the “commoners” to challenge and check the power of kings.

These days, the Lords is the second legislative chamber in parliament, responsible for amending and scrutinising the activities of the government-dominated Commons. Other democratic countries have a similar institution, often known as an upper chamber or senate.

Why did the Labour Party reform the Lords?

The House of Lords is widely condemned as undemocratic: “one of the most curious of the curious anomalies in British public life, defying all logic of democratic and secular politics”, in the words of political scientist John Kingdom.

The presence of an unelected upper chamber mocks the principle of a representative democracy, in which all people are equally entitled to participate in politics. The law lords could both make and judge the law: this runs counter to the democratic ideal of a ‘separation of powers’, which holds that the judiciary (courts), legislature (parliament) and executive (government) should remain independent of each other, checking and balancing each other’s power.

Self-interest also plays a part in Labour’s decision to reform the Lords. Dismantling the chamber enhances Labour’s reformist credentials. More importantly, abolishing the hereditary peers removes a key source of Conservative opposition to the government. Predominantly Tory, the hereditary peers have fuelled a number of revolts against Labour’s legislation, including major opposition to Labour’s welfare plans last autumn.

What can be done with the Lords?

There are two main options. The first is to create an upper chamber which is subservient to the government, sustaining the British tradition of a dominant executive. A House of Lords wholly nominated by the prime minister would be the most extreme example of this. Opponents argue that this would perpetuate the undemocratic imbalance of power in British politics, which makes government an “elective dictatorship”.

The second option is to create a second chamber similar to those in other western democracies: a directly elected, independent body, designed to check and scrutinise the power of the government, with no overlapping of judicial or legislative functions. Tony Blair is among those who believe this would undermine the Commons and introduce gridlock into politics, threatening the speed and efficiency with which the government can act.

What is the royal commission?

The government has said reform will not stop here. But it has not decided what further changes to make to the Lords, which, by other countries’ standards, is still absurdly undemocratic.

A royal commission, chaired by Conservative peer Lord Wakeham, was established in 1999 to consider and make recommendations on the role and functions of a second chamber. It was supposed to report by the end of 1999, but disagreements among the academics and politicians who make up the body delayed its publication.

Cynics observe that royal commissions are often used as tools of procrastination by governments wanting to be seen to be making reformist noises but unwilling to take legislative action. The highly respected Jenkins commission on electoral reform reported in November 1998, but the government has subsequently placed electoral reform at the bottom of its priorities. It is highly unlikely that Jenkins’ recommendations will ever be adopted.

Task VI. a) Read the text and answer the questions following it:

The roles of the second chamber

As well as considering the roles which a new second chamber should play, we need to consider the roles which it might play. Four separate strands of thinking have long dominated discussions about the possible roles of second chambers. We consider each in turn.

Counsel from a range of sources

The view of the classical world, as expressed by Aristotle and reflected in the constitution of republican Rome, was that good governance required those in power to take ‘counsel from a range of sources’. One potentially important role for a reformed second chamber might therefore be to provide a means whereby a range of different experiences and points of view – different, not least, from those of the House of Commons – could be brought to bear on proposed legislation and on public affairs more generally. The old House of Lords clearly played such a role, often successfully. We believe that the new second chamber should continue to play such a role. Its demonstrated ability to do so, and to do so effectively, would clearly add considerably to its overall authority.

Estates of the realm

The medieval view, not just in this country but throughout most of Europe, was that the principal ‘estates of the realm’ needed to be represented separately in any national assembly. Power in the state effectively resided in the estates; the structure of the national assemblies was organised to reflect that. The institution of Parliament in England and Wales and later in the whole United Kingdom originally embodied such a conception.

The commoners were represented in the House of Commons; the lords, both temporal and spiritual, in the House of Lords. No commoner could sit in the House of Lords; no lord (except the bearer of a courtesy title) could sit in the House of Commons. The notion of strictly defined estates of the realm makes no sense in the context of today’s far more heterogeneous, far more fluid society. Nevertheless, we believe that the new second chamber does have a role to play in being broadly representative of United Kingdom society as it is now – ideally, considerably more representative than are the members of the present House of Commons – and in reflecting the diverse experiences and traditions of that society.

Checks and balances

A third strand of historical thinking about second chambers has been concerned with what the authors of the United States Constitution, the Founding Fathers, thought of as ‘checks and balances’. The Founding Fathers’ view, as expressed in The Federalist Papers, was that a second chamber was desirable in a legislative assembly to “double the security of the people by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies”. As the House of Representatives in the United States was to be popularly elected, a powerful Senate, chosen on a different basis, was essential to act as a brake on the tendency of popular assemblies, “stimulated by some irregular passion .., or misled by the artful representations of interested men, to call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn” ( The Federalist. Paper 62. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison). We would not want to go that far but, as we have already indicated, we believe there is a role for the reformed second chamber to play as a check on the Government, with its majority in the House of Commons (the ‘popular assembly’).

The American notion of checks and balances, carried over into the United Kingdom system of government, could express itself in three areas: scrutinising the actions of the executive and holding it to account; participating in the legislative process; and playing a role in connection with proposed constitutional change.

The new second chamber should play an active role, complementary to that of the House of Commons, in scrutinising the executive and holding it to account. The House of Commons often finds it difficult both to sustain in power the Government of the day and to act as an effective check upon it. A revitalised second chamber could enhance the ability of Parliament as a whole to provide an effective check on the executive.

This conclusion is reinforced by the findings of a study of unicameral (single chamber) parliaments around the world, commissioned by the Scottish Office in preparation for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. The study found that the few successful unicameral parliaments that exist in the world, far from being dominated by an untrammelled executive, incorporate alternative checking and balancing devices. These include proportional representation, usually leading to minority or coalition governments; significant rights for minority parties; powerful backbench and other external scrutiny arrangements; and constitutional and/or judicial controls on the power of the executive.

Given the present nature of the constitutional settlement in the United Kingdom and in the absence of the kinds of constraints to be found in countries with unicameral systems, it falls to the second chamber in this country to assist Parliament as a whole to play its checking and balancing role.

The House of Lords already plays an active part in the legislative process in the United Kingdom, and many second chambers overseas are referred to as being, like the House of Lords, ‘revising’ chambers. Having two legislative chambers facilitates the scrutiny of legislation and improves the quality of legislative drafting. It allows greater flexibility in the legislative timetable, more opportunity for interested parties to press for improvements to draft legislation and more time for second thoughts to develop and be reflected in the final form of legislation. The existence of a second chamber also facilitates the taking of ‘counsel from a range of sources’ in connection with legislation.

It is not enough, however, for the second chamber merely to add its own voice to the other voices raised in legislative debates. It must, in addition, have the formal power to require those who initiate legislation to justify their proposals to the public and to both Houses of Parliament – if need be for a second time. Using this power, the second chamber can raise issues which the House of Commons has neglected and can bring considerable political pressure to bear on both the House of Commons and the Government. But we take the general view that even limited powers to refer issues back for consideration or to impose a delay could, if exercised with restraint and only when occasion clearly demanded it, have a substantial political impact. If a reformed second chamber were to express concern about a particular Government proposal and exercise whatever powers of delay or referral were available, that would lead to (renewed) public and media interest in the issue, with opportunities for the causes of concern to be set out. It would force the Government to reconsider the issues in the light of that interest, and it would give members of the House of Commons an opportunity to revisit the issues and make the final determination in the light of all the relevant information. The Government of the day would have to take such powers and their consequences into account in drafting its legislation in the first place as well as in seeking to put it on the statute book.

As regards proposed constitutional changes, the Commission merely notes at this stage that many second chambers overseas have an explicit role to play in safeguarding their country’s constitution. Many are accorded enhanced powers in connection with constitutional issues. However, because of the absence of a written constitution, the position in the United Kingdom is more complicated. On the one hand, a case can be made out that the new second chamber in this country should play a more clearly defined role with regard to constitutional matters and issues relating to human rights. On the other, there are a number of substantial difficulties in the idea of assigning the second chamber a significant formal role as ‘guardian of the constitution’.

The new second chamber should have the ability effectively to scrutinise the actions of the executive, including its legislative proposals; that it should have sufficient authority to ensure that it will be listened to when it draws attention to issues of concern; and that it should have sufficient power to require the Government of the day to consider its legitimate concerns. It should, in short, have the power to make the Government of the day think again, even against its will.

The representation of regions

The fourth strand in most thinking about the role of second chambers is the representation of regions, provinces, states and other territorial units. The United States Constitution, to take the obvious case, requires the United States Senate to provide equality of representation for each state, whatever its size. Not only in countries with federal systems but also in some countries with unitary systems, the second chamber is seen as a suitable vehicle for representing regions and other territorial units as distinct from simply representing population. We do not under present circumstances believe that the representation of the nations and regions should constitute one of the primary roles of the new second chamber in this country. In other words, we do not see the new second chamber playing the role of the United States Senate, the Australian Senate or the German Bundesrat. However, the reformed second chamber could have an important role in giving this country’s nations and regions a direct voice at Westminster which they currently lack.

(“A House for the Future” Royal Commission on the  Reform of the House of Lords Chairman: The Rt Hon Lord Wakeham DL)

b) Answer the following questions:

1. Is the national legislature in your country unicameral or bicameral?

2. What type of legislature is more preferable for your country and why?

3. Why is the counsel from a wide range of sources important for law making? Is this principle followed in your national legislature?

4. Why should the legislature be “broadly representative”? Is it the case in your country?

5. Why are the chambers in bicameral legislature elected on different bases? Is it true for your country?

6. Do the chambers usually exercise control over each other or over the other two branches of government?

7. How does the system of checks and balances apply to your system of government?

8. Is the upper house in your national legislature a “revising chamber’?

9. How is the problem of the executive domination solved in the countries with unicameral legislatures?

10. In what way is the quality of legislation secured by the two chambers?

11. What powers is the second chamber going to exercise? What powers are exercised by the upper house in your country?

12. Can one of the chambers be “the guardian of the constitution”? What person or body is the term referred to in your country?

13. Which chamber is more powerful in the British Parliament, in American Congress, in your national legislature?

14. Why should regions and constituent units be represented in the second chamber? Should their representatives be appointed or elected?

Task VII. a)Read the text from “A House for the Future” by Royal Commission on the  Reform of the House of Lords Chairman: The Rt Hon Lord Wakeham DL:

Characteristics of the reformed second chamber

The reformed second chamber should be:

• authoritative;

• confident; and

• broadly representative.

It should incorporate:

• breadth of expertise and a broad range of experience;

• particular knowledge and skills relevant to constitutional matters and human rights;

• an ability to bring philosophical, moral or spiritual perspectives to bear;

• personal distinction;

• freedom from party domination;

• a non-polemical style; and

• the ability to take a long-term view.

Authoritative

The reformed second chamber should be authoritative. It can and should play a vital role in scrutinising the executive, holding the Government to account and shaping legislation. It should therefore have the authority to ensure that its views and concerns are taken seriously. The Commission has proposed that it should retain the power to hold up the enactment of primary legislation and have power to delay the implementation of secondary legislation. It should have the authority to wield those powers.

It is essential that the second chamber’s authority should not be such as to challenge the ultimate authority of the House of Commons which derives directly from the electorate, through popular elections. It does not follow that there can be no role for the electorate in choosing members of the second chamber. But the greater the ‘democratic legitimacy’ of the second chamber, the greater the risk of damaging constitutional conflicts arising between the two Houses of Parliament.

It is, however, an error to suppose that the second chamber’s authority can only stem from democratic election. Other potential sources of authority include:

• the extent to which the second chamber’s members are broadly representative of the changing society which it seeks to serve;

• the breadth of experience and range of expertise which they possess;

• their individual personal distinction;

• the quality of the arguments they can bring to bear;

• their ability to exercise an unfettered judgement, relatively free from partisan political control.

The members of the reformed second chamber, both collectively and individually, should possess all these characteristics in any case. But their presence will, in addition, contribute substantially to its overall authority and to its ability to make itself heard. A second chamber drawing on such a wide range of sources of authority would be well placed to carry out effectively the roles and functions we have recommended.

Confident

The reformed second chamber should also be sufficiently confident to use its powers in what it judges to be the most effective and appropriate manner. Throughout the 20th century the House of Lords was inhibited both by its lack of authority and its lack of confidence. The reformed second chamber must be free of such debilitating inhibitions.

The second chamber should be cohesive. In determining how it should be composed and in considering its working practices, it will be important to ensure that members should be able to work well together, without being troubled by any sense or suggestion that some have a higher authority than others. Without such cohesion it would be difficult to generate the necessary confidence on the part of the second chamber as a whole.

Broadly representative

The reformed second chamber should be broadly representative of British society as a whole. The House of Commons is obviously representative in that MPs represent their individual geographic constituencies and reflect the electorate’s basic political choices. Nevertheless, there is a gap to be filled. It is not possible for voters to reflect all aspects of their personality and experience through a single vote in a general election. The second chamber could gain significant strength and authority from being seen to be representative of British society in all its dimensions. However, it cannot and should not be a mere statistical microcosm of British society. The long-term aim should be for all sectors of society to feel they have a voice in the second chamber, expressed by a person or persons with whom they can identify. This might be achieved through a combination of:

• regional representation;

• gender balance;

• representation for ethnic and other minorities;

• vocational representation; and

• appropriate representation for voluntary, cultural, sporting and other organisations.

The key point is that a more broadly representative membership could provide a vigorous alternative source of authority for the second chamber without threatening the democratic authority of the House of Commons. It could also play an important role in reconnecting ordinary people with the political process.

The reformed second chamber should provide a voice for the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. The people of all parts of the United Kingdom should know that their interests are being spoken for in the second chamber by people with whom they can identify. The level of direct regional representation should be sufficient to enable the second chamber to contribute effectively to the discussion of devolution and regional matters. It might well be raised if developments in the process of devolution or decentralisation make that appropriate.

The House of Lords has for far too long contained an excessive proportion of white males. Even the present life peerage, although it includes a higher proportion of women and members of minority ethnic groups than the former House of Lords, is far from being representative of British society in either respect. The reformed second chamber should be different. There should be steady progress towards gender balance and a more substantial representation of minority ethnic groups.

Breadth of experience and range of expertise

One of the characteristics of the present House of Lords is that it contains a substantial proportion of people who are not professional politicians, who have experience in a number of different walks of life and who can bring a considerable range of expertise to bear on issues of public concern. The support for this was reflected in the substantial number of proposals the Commission received that members of the reformed second chamber should be drawn in some way from professional bodies, vocational groups and other organizations representative of specific sectors of society.

It seems desirable that the reformed second chamber should continue to have members with a wide variety of experience in different walks of life. This would contribute to the goal of extending the range of perspectives from which issues are viewed by Parliament. It would reinforce the authority of the second chamber. Above all, the ability to call on at least some people with practical experience or relevant expertise in particular areas would reinforce the scrutinising role of the second chamber by helping it to assess the workability of proposals.

Having members with a range of relevant experience in the second chamber should not be seen as a substitute for consulting interested parties or taking evidence from relevant experts. Nevertheless, we see advantage in having people present in the second chamber who are familiar with the broad issues in a given area, who know what questions to ask and how to interpret the answers. People who have acquired relevant experience and expertise outside Parliament should be in a position to contribute actively to debates. Expert advisers, brought in from outside, however persuasive, could not have the same impact.

The present House of Lords has benefited from many of its members continuing their careers outside Parliament or maintaining contact with their former professions or occupations. Arrangements for constituting the reformed second chamber should allow this tradition to be maintained, so that at least some members can spend a proportion of their time actively engaged in work outside Parliament. Part-time membership of the second chamber should continue to be facilitated and even encouraged. There should be no minimum attendance requirement.

The range of expertise expected of members of the second chamber need not be prescribed in detail or remain constant over time. It should cover a broad spread of fields. Some particular types of expertise, likely to be of continuing relevance to the work of the second chamber, should always be represented in sufficient strength. The second chamber should contain people with a good grasp of the political and constitutional context within which the chamber will operate. It should contain people with an expert understanding of legal concepts and terminology and with practical experience of making and operating the law or developing public policies in a range of areas. There should be people with broad experience in public affairs and good analytical, influencing and debating skills. It should also contain people with broad experience of international, including European, affairs.

Particular knowledge and skills relevant to constitutional matters and human rights

The second chamber’s membership obviously needs to include people with knowledge and expertise in constitutional matters and human rights.

In other countries, the consideration of constitutional matters and human rights issues is carried out by people of acknowledged independence with extensive legal and judicial experience. In this country, a strong contingent of experienced lawyers should be present in the reformed second chamber to help with this work. As currently, serving Law Lords would need to avoid committing themselves on particular issues which they might subsequently have to rule on. But retired Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or former holders of high judicial office would be free to contribute more fully. However, the consideration of constitutional and human rights matters is not a task which need, or should, be left exclusively to people with judicial experience or to lawyers. People with experience or expert knowledge of human rights issues and international human rights instruments would be required. The reformed second chamber should include members with the knowledge and skills necessary to enable it to discharge effectively its roles in relation to constitutional matters and human rights issues.

b) Use the following characteristics to describe the chambers – their powers, membership and proceedings – in your national legislature:

• authoritative;

• confident;

• broadly representative;

• breadth of expertise and a broad range of experience;

• particular knowledge and skills relevant to constitutional matters and human rights;

• an ability to bring philosophical, moral or spiritual perspectives to bear;

• personal distinction;

• freedom from party domination;

• a non-polemical style;

• the ability to take a long-term view;

• the extent to which the second chamber’s members are broadly representative of the changing society which it seeks to serve;

• the breadth of experience and range of expertise which they possess;

• their individual personal distinction;

• the quality of the arguments they can bring to bear;

• their ability to exercise an unfettered judgement, relatively free from partisan political control;

• regional representation;

• gender balance;

• representation for ethnic and other minorities;

• vocational representation;

• appropriate representation for voluntary, cultural, sporting and other organizations.

Task VIII. a) Read the following texts and say whether titles and names are important;

b) Comment on the names of the legislature and its houses in your country.

Titles of members

The decision to sever the automatic link between the peerage and membership of the chamber means that a new title for members will be required. This is not a central issue, but the title adopted will symbolise the nature and style of the new institution and its members.

New members of the reformed second chamber will enter through appointment by the independent Appointments Commission, whether by virtue of selection as a regional member or by the Appointments Commission itself, or by virtue of appointment as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or as a representative of the Church of England. Possession of a peerage should no longer be a necessary qualification for membership of the second chamber, and new members should not be offered a peerage in that connection.

The future of the peerage itself is not a matter on which we need express a view. However, we would expect that it would remain open to the Prime Minister to recommend award of a peerage in recognition of a person’s merit and achievements. Possession of a peerage should not be a bar to membership of the reformed second chamber and members of the chamber should not be precluded from accepting peerages; but the two should be completely distinct.

Titles of members

The decision to sever the automatic link between the peerage and membership of the chamber means that a new title for members will be required. This is not a central issue, but the title adopted will symbolise the nature and style of the new institution and its members.

Some have suggested that members of the reformed second chamber should adopt the suffix LP (Lord/Lady of Parliament) and the courtesy title ‘Lord/Lady’. This option would signal and symbolise the elements of continuity from the present House of Lords, which we believe should be sustained. It would also reflect the fact that for at least the first few years of its existence, until new members came to outnumber the remaining life peers, the reformed second chamber would continue to have a majority of Lords (and Ladies) among its members. There would be no need to change the name of the chamber and many of the formal usages could be left unaltered. While there might be a risk of confusion with the title ‘Lord of Parliament’ held by Church of England bishops and some members of the Scottish peerage, the numbers involved are sufficiently small as to suggest this would be a minor issue. Thus, possession of a peerage is no longer a necessary qualification for membership of the second chamber, and new members should not be offered a peerage in that connection.

Others have proposed that a fresh chamber needs a fresh start. A change of title could clarify the changed nature of entry to the reformed second chamber and its separation from the peerage. They suggest that there would be a considerable risk of confusion between the Lords/Ladies of Parliament who were members of the second chamber but not peers, the Lords/Ladies who were peers but not members of the second chamber and, potentially, the Lords/Ladies who were peers and might be elected to the House of Commons. Alternative titles would be ‘State Counsellor’ and ‘Senator’/‘Senator of Parliament’. The former has little to commend it and could easily be confused with local government ‘councillor’. By contrast, ‘Senator’ has the great advantage of being generally understood as referring to a member of a country’s second chamber.

Name of the chamber

Should members of the second chamber be known as Lords/Ladies of Parliament, this would allow many of the traditions and usages of the current House of Lords to continue and would not require any change in the name of the chamber. A change would be required, however, if members of the reformed second chamber were to receive the title

Senator/Senator of Parliament. In this country, we are accustomed to our two national legislative chambers being ‘Houses’ of Parliament. This would imply that the reformed second chamber should be known as the House of Senators.

These issues are not central to the successful reform of the second chamber and there are arguments in favour of each of the options canvassed above. We consider that the situation should be left to evolve. Parliament should determine whether, in time, the reformed second chamber should be called something other than the House of Lords and its members given a new title.

TEXT 7 Composition of the Modern House of Commons

The House of Commons is a representative assembly elected by universal adult suffrage, and consists of men and women (members of Parliament, “MPs”) from all sections of the community, regardless of income or occupation.

The UK Parliament has MPs from areas across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In addition, there is a Parliament in Scotland, a National Assembly in Wales and a National Assembly in Northern Ireland.

The UK has many political parties, the main three being Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats. These three work in both the House of Commons and House of Lords.

The UK public elects 650 Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs consider and propose new laws, and can scrutinise government policies by asking ministers questions about current issues either in the Commons Chamber or in Committees. As a representative of the ordinary citizen, an MP may challenge the policy put forward by a minister during a debate on a particular bill in the second reading or, as regularly happens, may put forward amendments at committee stage, through the institution of parliamentary questions and answers as well as during adjournment debates or during the debates on “Opposition days”. In addition, the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments is closely scrutinized by the select committees of the House of Commons.

The House of Commons was originally far less powerful than the House of Lords, but today its legislative powers greatly exceed those of the Lords. Under the Parliament Act 1911, the Lords’ power to reject most legislative bills was reduced to a delaying power. Moreover, the Government is primarily responsible to the House of Commons; the prime minister stays in office only as long as he or she retains its support. Almost all government ministers are drawn from the House of Commons and, with one exception, all prime ministers since 1902.

The UK is divided into 650 areas called constituencies. During an election everyone eligible to cast a vote in a constituency (constituents) selects one candidate to be their MP. To stand as an MP a person must be aged 18 or over, a citizen of the UK, Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland, and not disqualified. The candidate who gets the most votes becomes the MP for that area until the next election. In a general election, all constituencies become vacant and a Member of Parliament is elected for each from a list of candidates standing for election. General elections commonly happen every four to five years, after a Parliament has been dissolved and a new one summoned by the Sovereign. If a person stands down as an MP a by-election is held in that constituency alone to find a new MP for that area. A by-election occurs when a seat in the House of Commons becomes vacant during the lifetime of a Parliament (i.e. between general elections), because the sitting MP dies, resigns (by applying for the Chiltern Hundreds), is elevated to the peerage, or becomes ineligible to sit for some other reason.

Members of the House of Commons hold their seats until Parliament is dissolved (a maximum of five years after the preceding election). An MP who wishes to resign has to go through the process of applying for a paid office of the Crown, which automatically disqualifies the MP from holding a seat in the House of Commons.

The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons.

The Speakership under its present title dates back to 1377. But until the seventeenth century, the Speaker was often an agent of the King, although they were often blamed if they delivered news from Parliament that the King did not like. And only in the mid-nineteenth century it became the norm that the Speaker should remain politically impartial.

The Speaker of the House of Commons chairs debates in the Commons chamber. During debates he keeps order and calls MPs to speak. The Speaker also represents the Commons to the monarch, the Lords and other authorities and chairs the House of Commons Commission. The Speaker must be above party politics at all times.

The holder of this office is an MP who has been elected by other Members of Parliament. Under the new system which came into effect in 2007 and was first used in June 2009 candidates must be nominated by at least twelve members, of whom at least three must be of a different party from the candidate. Each member may nominate no more than one candidate. The candidate should then receive more than half the votes by secret ballot in the House.

Speakers still stand in general elections. During a general election, Speakers do not campaign on any political issues but simply stand as ‘the Speaker seeking re-election’.

The State Opening of Parliament marks the beginning of the parliamentary session. Its main purpose is for the monarch formally to open Parliament and, in the Queen’s Speech, deliver an outline of the Government’s proposed policies, legislation for the coming session and a review of the last session. State Opening is the main ceremonial event of the parliamentary calendar, attracting large crowds, both in person and watching on television and the internet. The Queen’s procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster is escorted by the Household Cavalry. The Queen’s Speech is delivered by the Queen from the Throne in the House of Lords, in the presence of Members of both Houses.

Notes

An adjournment debate – a way in the Commons of having a general debate without requiring the House to vote. There is a half-hour adjournment debate at the end of each day’s sitting. Members apply for an adjournment debate to the Speakers Office. Subject matters of adjournment debates are varied. The MP who tabled the relevant adjournment debate is called to speak and a Minister will reply. The MP has no right of response, but can intervene in the Minister’s speech if he or she is willing to allow it (called ‘giving way’).

In Parliamentary law adjourn means ‘to end or postpone the current meeting’. The unqualified motion to adjourn terminates the meeting. A motion is put forward that the House should adjourn (the day’s business is finished), but it’s not actually answered and the adjournment debates are held. At the end of the half-hour debate the motion for the adjournment of the House is put forward again and agreed to - signalling the end of the day’s business.

Apply for the Chiltern Hundreds – A way for an MP to resign. Under a Resolution of the House of 2 March 1624, Members of Parliament cannot directly resign their seat. Therefore a Member wishing to resign has to go through the process of applying for a paid office of the Crown. Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds is an appointment that, as a nominal office of profit under the Crown, disqualifies its holder from membership of the House of Commons. Although the appointment has been a sinecure since the 18^th century, it has been retained as a disqualifying office to enable members to give up their seats during the lifetime of a parliament (a member cannot by law resign his seat). After obtaining the stewardship (an application for which is never refused), the member resigns the office so as to make it available for re-use. A second office used for the same purpose is the stewardship of the Manor of Northstead. The law relating to both these offices is now contained in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

Opposition Days – Days allocated in the House of Commons in each session for the discussion of subjects chosen by the Opposition. There are 20 days allocated for this purpose per session and the Opposition generally uses them to raise questions of policy and administration.

Task I. Use the following expressions to describe 1) the elected chamber of the UK Parliament; 2) the elected chamber of the national legislature in your country:

universal adult suffrage all sections of the community regardless of income or occupation represent their interests and concerns consider and propose new laws scrutinise government policies questions about current issues put forward amendments eligible to cast a vote challenge the policy

exceed the powers put forward amendments secret ballot parliamentary session at committee stage a by-election is held become ineligible to sit for some reason come into effect deliver a speech elevate to the peerage

Task II. a) Use a law dictionary or GLOSSARY to define the following concepts,:

suffrage, institution, a delaying power, eligible/ineligible, qualified/disqualified, dissolve, nominate.

b) Use nomination, ineligible, delaying power, qualified, nominating, eligible, institution, dissolved, delaying power, disqualified, nominations, ineligible, suffrage, institutions, eligible, nominations, eligible, dissolved, power to delay, disqualified, nominating in the following sentences, translate the sentences:

1. The decision to sever the automatic link between the peerage and membership of the chamber means that a new title for members will be required. This is not a central issue, but the title adopted will symbolise the nature and style of the new … and its members.

2. There is no system of inviting widespread … and assessing candidates through a hierarchy of expert assessment groups as there is for the honours system.

3. Whether a two-term President could be elected or appointed Vice President depends upon the meaning of the Twelfth Amendment, which provides that ‘‘no person constitutionally … to the office of President shall be … to that of Vice-President.’’

4. Bagehot divided the … of the British state into two categories: the “dignified parts…, which excite and preserve the reverence of the population” and the “efficient parts… those by which it, in fact, works and rules.”

5. Employees who suffer from occupational diseases are … for workers' compensation.

6. The Prime Minister forwards the resulting list of … to the Queen.

7. Federal employees were … from accepting or holding any position in the Government or the District of Columbia if they belonged to an organization that they knew advocated the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.

8. Under the current system for appointing life peers to the House of Lords, the parties have been good at … at least some people who are not professional politicians, who are personally distinguished in their own right and who sometimes take a relatively independent line.

9. Immunity from civil liability for a public official who is performing a discretionary function, as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights is called … immunity.

10. But if the parties were … candidates for election, their criteria would be likely to change.

11. Since Congress may not supersede the power of a State to determine how a corporation shall be formed, supervised, and …, a corporation, which has been …. by a decree of a state court, may not file a petition for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Act.

12. It would be easy for small groups within particular professions or sectors of society to dominate and control the … process.

13. A trust to provide for the needs of a disabled person may terminate if the beneficiary becomes … for a government-benefits program such as Medicaid.

14. Although the Conservative majority in the Lords adopted the self-denying ordinance of the ‘Salisbury Convention’ under which they did not reject Bills fulfilling manifesto commitments – the Government decided to reduce the length of the Lords’ … .

15. If an applicant is certified to be … for naturalization, the oath of allegiance may be administered by the Attorney General, a federal district court, or a state court of record.

16. Parliament Act 1949.This Act reduced the Lords’ … from a minimum of two years to a minimum of one.

17. The Court struck down state statutes which either wholly … resident aliens for welfare assistance or imposed a lengthy durational residency requirement on eligibility.

18. The legislative power, the Framers both knew and feared, was predominant in a society dependent upon the … of the people, and it was important to have a precaution against the triumph of transient majorities.

19. In addition, the House of Lords’ … Bills would be reduced to six months and its power to veto secondary legislation abolished.

Task III. Define the meanings of the word authority in the following sentences. Find more examples with it.

The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons.

The Speaker also represents the Commons to the monarch, the Lords and other authorities and chairs the House of Commons Commission. The Speaker must be above party at all times.

Task IV. Fill in the blanks with prepositions where necessary:

to chair … debates, regardless … income, a debate … a particular bill, … the second reading, … committee stage, to stay … office, … some other reason, to disqualify the MP … holding a seat.

Task V. Read the following texts to discuss the differences in law-making process in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords:

In the Commons, the growth of party feeling and the obstructionist tactics of Irish Nationalist MPs led to the rights of individual MPs being progressively restricted to ensure that the Government’s business was processed. The guillotine, time limits, selection and grouping of amendments, and controls on opportunities for debate were the main tools employed. As a result, the Speaker was granted substantial powers, including responsibility for controlling debate and the conduct of MPs in the chamber. The only major aspect of the chamber not under the Speaker’s authority is the business of the House, which remains in the hands of the Leader of the House of Commons on behalf of the Government. Similar trends have been observed in lower chambers around the world.

One consequence of the variation in procedural styles adopted by the two Houses is that they may reach different decisions on procedural matters with regard to legislation. For example, in the Commons, the decision whether a proposed amendment is relevant or should be called for debate is the Speaker’s alone. In the Lords, the relevance of amendments is decided by the House as a whole, while the member moving an amendment can insist on it being debated and decided separately. As a result, an amendment ruled out of order in the Commons may be debated and passed in the Lords. Similarly, while the rules as to whether a Bill is hybrid are the same in both Houses, the Government can use its majority in the Commons to dispense with the relevant Standing Order, and so treat the Bill as if it were not hybrid. The Government cannot rely on being able to do this in the Lords.

Although these features may appear somewhat inconsistent, they are an inevitable consequence of the different approaches to procedure taken by the two Houses. The benefits for the work of the second chamber flowing from open procedures are such that inconsistencies of this sort are a relatively minor price to pay. This approach to procedure provides for a more relaxed pace of business and allows greater time for detailed consideration and reflection than does the more hurried and regulated approach generally adopted by first chambers. It does, however, increase the risk of filibustering. The absence of any mechanism to ensure that Government business is dealt with within a reasonable time frame can result in deadlock, such as is regularly experienced in the United States Congress. In the case of the second chamber, it is necessary that the freedoms associated with open procedures should be tempered with acknowledgement of political reality. Most legislation is proposed by a Government which has a majority in the House of Commons, the pre-eminent House of Parliament, that is based upon its victory in a general election. As we have noted in earlier chapters, it would not be appropriate in these circumstances for the second chamber to seek to delay Government business purely by procedural means. Therefore, while the benefits of open procedures are significant, we reaffirm our earlier recommendation that it is essential they be accompanied by a convention that all Government business be considered within a reasonable time.

Pressures on open procedures in the House of Lords

It may happen that the time pressures on the reformed second chamber may in due course reach the point where the current approach of self-regulation, guided by advice from the Leader of the House, will no longer be sufficient to ensure the smooth and fair conduct of business.

The growing workload of the House of Lords has led to progressive restrictions on its members. These have usually been in the form of ‘guidance’ rather than a formal reduction in rights. The number of Questions for Written Answer that a peer can table is now limited to six per day, while the number of Starred (Oral) Questions which each peer is entitled to ask has been reduced from two per day: each peer is now permitted only one on the Order Paper at any one time. A limit of 30 minutes is also observed at Question Time. Numerous other examples exist, covering all aspects of members’ involvement in the business of the House. Even where formal restrictions have not been imposed, the guidance has become firmer in tone and the scope and detail significantly expanded. The Companion to the Standing Orders, for example, has grown from 30 pages in 1955 to 247 pages today, while the Leader of the House has had to intervene more frequently to arbitrate between those competing for the floor. In short, there appear to be significant pressures on the existing system of conventions and procedures governing members’ behaviour. While recognising these pressures, the value of the current system of open procedures is such that any restrictions which become necessary should be designed to preserve the essential character of what exists at present.

The self-regulatory nature of the House of Lords is a distinctive feature, shared with several other second chambers overseas. It is entirely in keeping with the maturity which members of a second chamber should be expected to show. It is also consistent with the relative lack of political passion, which we hope the reformed second chamber will display. Accordingly, we would regard it as a retrograde step if any pressures on the second chamber were to lead to a breakdown in its ability to be self-regulating and so require the introduction of a Speaker with powers of order. Indeed, it may be the absence of such a Speaker that encourages the Lords to conduct their business with courtesy. If members could rely on the Speaker to enforce order, they might feel less responsible themselves to behave in an orderly fashion and be more likely to push at the limits of behaviour in order to secure party political advantage. The proceedings of the second chamber would consequently become more like those in the House of Commons, which would be in complete contrast to the nature of the second chamber.

TASK VI Insert prepositions where necessary:

1. The House of Commons consists … all sections … the community.

2. A member … the House of Commons can resign … the indirect method … applying … an office … profit … the Crown.

3. The Speaker's functions fall … two main categories.

4. He presides … the debates … the House and enforces the observance … all rules … preserving order … its proceedings.

5. The Commons elects its own Speaker to put … the name … a member acceptable … all sections … the House.

6. The Speaker is re-elected … subsequent Parliaments and thus remains … office until he chooses to retire.

7. Legislation is initiated … the introduction … bills … either House.

TASK VII Explain the meaning of the following –ing phrases and translate them:

1. Bills dealing exclusively with expenditure and taxation;

2. the delaying powers of the Lords;

3. This is a measure pending the current review;

4. an opinion in favour of abolishing the House of Lords;

5. It will act as a check by suggesting revisions to legislation ;

6. It can work providing a brake on the Commons;

7. A member can do so by the indirect method of applying for an office;

8. The usual practice being for the government;

9. He remains aloof from party issues-standing as "the Speaker seeking re-election".

TASK VIII. Write down the missing words in each group:

1.authority 2.grown-up 3.stand for 4.a body that makes law 5.begin, introduce 6.written request 7.an individual 8.perform and function 9.people in one state 10.Lasting for a short time	1					r
	2					t
	3									t
	4						l						e
	5								e
	6			p									n
	7						r
	8		x
	9						n
	10				p

Read the first word down.

TEXT 8 THE MEETING OF PARLIAMENT

Strictly speaking, Parliament is a meeting, summoned under the Royal Prerogative by the monarch, of the two separate Houses, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The summoning of Parliament was a key issue in the power struggle of the seventeenth century. The Stuart kings sometimes attempted to rule without Parliament, but were driven to summon Parliament in order to obtain the legal power to raise taxes. By the sixteenth century it was established that taxation could normally be raised only with the consent of Parliament and, indeed, that changes in the law required Parliament's consent. The Stuart monarchs attempted to undermine this principle with varying degrees of success, but the foundations of the modern law were established by the 1688 Revolution.

The main principles are as follows. They are a mixture of law and convention.

1. “Parliament ought to be held frequently” (Bill of Rights 1688, Art. 13) and must meet at least once every three years (Meeting of Parliament Act 1694). Parliament meets annually (convention backed by administrative necessity, for example, passing of tax and expenditure laws).

2. Parliament must automatically end at the expiry of five years from the date of its writ of summons (Septennial Act 1715; Parliament Act 1911).

3. Parliament may within the five years be dissolved by the monarch (law) on the advice of the prime minister (convention). This precipitates a general election. A prime minister whose government is defeated on a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons must ask for a dissolution. Apart from that, dissolution is, by convention, a matter for the prime minister. A Parliament will usually last for about four years, dissolution being timed for the political advantage of the prime minister. This is one of the main sources of prime ministerial power. However, it is possible that in certain extreme cases the monarch can exercise personal choice whether or not to dissolve Parliament. The same proclamation dissolves Parliament and summons a new one.

It is sometimes suggested that Parliament should sit for a fixed term, thus removing the prime minister's power to call an election to suit his own party. This could, however, paralyse a weak government.

A “Parliament” must be distinguished from a “session”, which is a working period within a Parliament, usually about one year in length (about 170 sitting days). All public bills that are not completed by the end of a session lapse. Sessions are “prorogued” by the monarch under the Royal Prerogative. Each session is opened, usually in November, by the monarch, with an address from the Throne. Within a session each House can be adjourned at any time by resolution of the House. Adjournments cover the long holidays and shorter breaks. There is machinery for recalling each House while it stands prorogued (for example, Meeting of Parliament Act 1870; Emergency Powers Act 1920). An adjourned Parliament can be summoned quickly by the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor (who presides over the House of Lords) at the request of the Prime Minister.

NOTES TO THE TEXT

Septennial Act (1716) – Legislation repealing the Triennial Act (1694) which extended the maximum life of parliament from three years to seven. Remaining in force until the Parliament Act (1911) restricted parliaments to five years, it was important in easing the transition to political stability and to Whig supremacy in the early years of the Hanoverian monarchy (George I (1714) – Victoria (1901).

LANGUAGE PRACTICE AND COMPREHENSION CHECK

TASK I Use the following verbs (in active or passive voice) with the word Parliament in your own sentences:

to meet, to sit, to summon, to hold, to dissolve, to adjourn, to prorogue, to end, to convoke, to last, to recall

TASK II. a) Compare the meanings of the verbs adjourn and prorogue:

Adjourn – (fr. à jour “to a day”) means literally “to put off to another day”: to stop a meeting for some period.

Prorogue – to discontinue the meetings of a legislative assembly (usually Parliament for a definite or indefinite time without dissolving it; to discontinue meeting until the next session.

b) use the verbs in the sentences below; translate the sentences:

1. The sitting of the House of Commons … and will resume on the following day.

2. Parliament … for the summer recess.

3. An … Parliament can be summoned quickly by the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor at the request of the Prime Minister.

4. There are statutory provisions for recalling each House while it stands… .

5. Powers within the constitutional/personal prerogative category of powers include power to summon, … and dissolve Parliament.

6. Solicitors in divorce cases must certify whether or not they have discussed the possibility of reconciliation with their clients, and proceedings may be … if the court feels there is a chance of reconciliation.

7. A deliberative assembly's meeting begins with a call to order and continues until the assembly … .

8. To … means to discontinue a session of a legislative assembly, especially the British Parliament without dissolution.

9. Each House divides a session into sittings, normally of a day's duration, which end when a motion to … is passed.

10. The motion to recess, which merely suspends the meeting, differs from the motion to … , which ends the meeting.

TASK III Make up sentences using the following phrases:

1). Although; to rule without Parliament; to obtain the legal power to raise taxes.

2). The consent of Parliament; to change any law.

3). Annual meeting of parliament; to exercise governmental powers.

3. Although; the duration of Parliament; five years.

4. Dissolution of Parliament; a general election.

5. A vote of no confidence in the House of Commons…

6. One of the main sources of prime ministerial power…

7. Fixed term of Parliament; because.

8. If a public bill…

9. It is the monarch; each session of Parliament.

TASK IV Write out from the text all the laws and conventions mentioned there:

LAWS:

CONVENTIONS:

TASK V Give your reasons for and against a fixed term of Parliament.

TASK VI Use the following verbs in their correct tense forms debate, supervise, supply, choose, sustain, veto, criticize, amend, approve, include, increase, govern, exercise, control, develop, check, authorize.

The Functions of Parliament

In legal theory Parliament is the central institution of the UK constitution. Its functions … over the centuries as it gradually … its power over the Crown. In its combined form of Queen, Lords, and Commons, Parliament is the supreme lawmaker. Other functions of Parliament … by each House separately and sometimes through joint committees (for example, Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments).

The other functions of Parliament …:

(i) … and … a government;

(ii) … the government with funds and … government spending;

(iii) … the executive through the doctrine of ministerial responsibility;

(iv) the redress of grievances;

(v) … matters of public concern.

It is important to remember that Parliament does not … but … and … the executive. Even in relation to lawmaking Parliament is a reactive and not an initiating body. It …, …, …, and occasionally … legislation.

TEXT 9 TYPES OF LEGISLATION

The five main types of legislation considered by Parliament are:

Government Bills; Private Members’ Bills; Private Bills; Hybrid Bills; Statutory Instruments.

Government Bills embody Government policy and are introduced by a Minister. These are the most important form of legislation and take up the largest proportion of Parliamentary time. The Government’s Parliamentary majority means that Government Bills, with certain rare exceptions, are eventually passed and become part of the law of the land, though they may be heavily amended in the process.

Example: The Ports Bill, which transferred certain ports from the public sector to private-sector ownership.

Private Members’ Bills are introduced not by the Government but by an individual backbench MP or Peer of any political party. Because relatively little Parliamentary time is available for discussing these bills, their chances of being enacted and becoming law are much smaller.

Example: The Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill, which introduced reforms designed to reduce the sale of tobacco products to children.

These two types of Bill are also known as Public Bills. They concern matters of general interest, and when passed they apply across the nation.

Private Bills are promoted by organizations seeking specific, usually local, powers that do not involve the construction of works such as railways.

Example: The Torquay Markets Bill, which allowed the market building at Torquay, Devon, to be used for alternative purposes.

Hybrid Bills are Public Bills to which elements of Private Bill procedure apply.

Example: The Channel Tunnel Bill, which authorized the construction of the Channel Tunnel.

Statutory Instruments are detailed rules or regulations made under powers contained in an Act of Parliament. Statutory Instruments are also known as secondary legislation since they flow from primary legislation, i.e. Acts of Parliament.

Example: The Draft Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts in Rear Seats by Adults) Regulations, which required adults traveling in the rear seats of cars to wear seat belts when these are fitted.

Most Public Bills apply to the whole of Great Britain: that is, to England, Scotland and Wales. Because the Scottish legal system differs in some respects from that of England and Wales, some Bills apply to Scotland, or to England and Wales, alone.

TASK I

1. Describe the procedure of passing Government Bills.

2. Prove that Private Members’ Bills have few chances of becoming law.

3. Explain the difference between the Private Members’ Bills and the Private Bills.

4. Give an example of a Hybrid Bill.

5. Describe Statutory Instruments.

TASK II Translate the following word-combinations:

statutory instruments; to embody Government policy; an individual backbench MP; chances of being enacted; matters of general interest; rules and regulations; primary legislation; secondary legislation; the laws apply across the nation.

TEXT 10 THE PASSAGE OF A PUBLIC BILL INTRODUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT INTO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

The preparation of legislation is often a lengthy process. The content and policy of the Bill must be approved by the appropriate Cabinet committee and then by the full Cabinet. Reform may sometimes be preceded by Green or White Papers allowing pre-legislative consultation in Parliament. Consultation will also take place with various interest groups. By the end of this pre-legislative stage the main content of the Bill is effectively settled although further negotiations between the various interested parties continue throughout the passage through Parliament.

Responsibility for drafting the Bill is with the Parliamentary Draftsmen, officially known as Parliamentary Counsel to the Treasury. Their draft is scrutinized by the Legislation Committee of the Cabinet. The Lord Chancellor’s Office and the Law Officers are also likely to examine the Bill to consider such matters as the proper legal wording and the practicalities of implementation.

1. First Reading. A Purely formal stage.

The title of the Bill is read out, an order is made for the Bill to be published and a date fixed for the second reading.

2. Second Reading.

The principles of the Bill are discussed on the floor of the House. The Bill is voted on.

3. Committee Stage.

A detailed clause by clause analysis of the Bill by a standing committee of between 16-50 M.P.s. Detailed amendments are considered.

4. Report Stage.

The Bill is reported back to the whole House as amended. Further amendments, usually government sponsored, can be made at this stage.

5. Third Reading

Once again the whole House considers the principles behind the legislation. Only verbal amendments can be made and any debate must be supported by at least six members.

Once a Bill has passed its Commons' stage it goes up to the House of Lords where the same process is repeated, except that the Committee stage is taken on the floor of the House. If the Bill is amended in the House of Lords, these amendments must be considered by the Commons. Often these amendments are tabled by the Government and so there is no problem in ensuring that the Commons will approve them. If, however, the amendments are rejected by the Commons, the Lords must decide whether to persist with these. If no agreement is reached before the end of the Session, the Bill will fail. The government must then decide whether to reintroduce the measure in the following session and invoke the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911- 49.

Once the Bill is passed by both Houses it receives the Royal Assent. This is purely formal.