Cash4Coursework has been rebranded ‘FreeCoursework.info’ - Visit us to download coursework for free and to earn money from your old coursework!
View this page at Freecoursework.info
The House of Lords is Britain's only effective opposition. Discuss. - page 3
Keywords: house of lords britain uk opposition role
By exploiit on 19/06/2010
Level: A Level (Year 12) / AS Level
Page Number: 3 of 4 pages: 1 2 3 4real opposition to government.
This belief itself is supported not only by theory, but by evidence. The House of Lords has demonstrated its own ability to effectively carry out its set functions of scrutiny and legitimisation, and has proven its ability to oppose the executive through said functions. The Lords, for example, have denied the Anti-Terrorism Bill (42-Day Detention) after its passage through the Commons, and have also knocked back plans to curtail jury trails. As well as this, peers have been responsible for adjusting and initiating legislation to allow Gurkhas the same pension as those in the British armed forces, to stop compulsory ID cards and also protecting one’s rights to trial before a jury. Ministers themselves have even admitted to the authority of the Lords; “I’ve been under greater scrutiny as a minister in the House of Lords than I ever was in the Commons” (Lord Rooker, Minister for Housing). All of which suggest that there is truth in the ideology that the House of Lords is the only real opposition to government.
However, an argument also exists to combat this belief. It is often contested that, although the House of Lords is responsible for some good work, its faults and limitations cannot be ignored.
As a second chamber it should be remembered that the Lords is not an elected body of scrutiny or legitimisation as the House of Commons is. It is appointed largely on a basis of experience, but the decision lies ultimately with government officials within the Appointments Commission, as well as the Prime Minister. This understandably leads to doubts about the composition of the House. Some Lords, for example Lord Falconer of Thoroton who was offered a peerage by Tony Blair because they had once lived together, prove that the House is often subject to corruption and personal or political preference. It is proposed that the entire system of appointment should be destroyed, and peers should instead be elected on the basis of vocationalism.
Erminegate, in late January of this year, acts as one significant instance in which peers could be bought; “cash for questions”. Four peers from the House were paid by private companies who wished for the Lords to use their positions and advocate on behalf of their organization. Moonie, Snape, Truscott and Taylor were all found to have been offering their services for impressive payments. In 2006 and 2007, scandal also spiraled over supposed “cash
Last 5 comments…
There have been no comments posted for this article, but you need to register if you want to be the first!