Ep. 223 Commons Versus Lords

Hello and welcome to the A Level Policy Show for the month of April and the year 2026. Building on a recent pod that compared the Senate with the House of Representatives, I'm redoing an episode from three years ago that compares the Lords and the Commons. This is the question, evaluate the view that the House of Commons is better at performing its functions than that of the House of Lords. What are the functions, passing and considering legislation, scrutinising the work of government and representation? I find revising these essays really useful as it helps prepare you for three essays and one, as you could be asked a question on just a single function. FYI, at the time of recording, the examiner has never asked a question just on representation, saying, check out episode 160 for the in-depth look at that one. For now though, we were comparing the two parliamentary chambers. I would strongly urge you to take a function by function approach rather than a chamber by chamber approach, since it helps you to compare the chambers on a frequent basis and thus answer the actual question. What is my direction? It is this. The House of Lords is better than the House of Commons at performing its functions. First up, let's look at legislation. Now there are two ways we can judge the chambers when it comes to legislation. The first is in relation to legislative quantity, can important business get done. The second, and I would argue the far more important, relates to legislative quality. I think it's fair to say that the Commons is better at the former only. The fusion of powers allows the government to dominate the Commons, allowing laws to be able to be passed between the 2019 general election and the 2024 general election. The Tory government only suffered one government defeat in the House of Commons in large part to that party's ADC government majority. The defeat was on the infected blood scandal in December 2023. The sole defeat, Labour, has yet to lose a vote in the House of Commons since winning a 170-plus seat majority in 2024. These majorities help the government to control legislative outcomes and pass meaningful legislation. Take some laws passed in 2025. We've got the Great British Energy Act and the Renters Rights Act. The Employment Rights Act, which is not particularly liked by business, was able to be passed, which gives employees better protections at work. These examples demonstrate that the Commons is able to take tough and sometimes controversial decisions, which is what the legislative function should enable Parliament and government to do. Furthermore, private members bills give opportunities to backbentures to make law. These are proposals introduced by MPs who are not government ministers, giving backbentures a chance to shake public policy. Liam Fox's Down syndrome Act 2022 recognised a legal duty to ensure that health and social care needs of those living with conditions with this condition are met. This example shows how MPs can focus on specific campaigns and how right laws to promote them, but bench rebellions demonstrate how ordinary MPs are influential in crafting law. Over 100 MPs rebelled over Plan B COVID restrictions imposed in December 2021 to prevent the spread of the Omicron variant. In 2025, Labour MPs rebelled over plans to tighten eligibility for personal independence payments, forcing the government to rethink its welfare reforms. These examples demonstrate that laws are carefully scrutinised, which is what is needed in order for Parliament to truly fulfil its legislative function. Meanwhile, the law is severely curtailed when it comes to legislation. The Salisbury Convention means that the laws do not try to vote down a government bill mentioned in an election manifesto, financial privilege, the rule that bans the laws from scrutinising the budget. The 1949 Parliament Act limits the ability of the laws to block legislation to a one-year delay. The legislative ping-pong, when a bill goes back and forth between the commons, usually results in the laws backing down because it is unelected, all of the amendments attached to the safety of Rwanderak 2024 were simply defeated upon their return to the commons. These examples show the limited power of the laws when it comes to achieving legislative quality, and therefore it also showcases the ineffectiveness of this chamber's revising function. However, the fusion of powers allows the government to dominate the House of Commons, allowing laws to be able to be passed, yes, but not ones that have enjoyed appropriate scrutiny. Witness the difference in scrutiny over the aforementioned safety of Rwanderbill, which sailed through the commons in January 2024 despite real concerns that the law failed to comply with international law regarding the sending of asylum seekers to countries with poor human rights records. The real line-by-line legislative scrutiny of this bill took place in the Lords. Conversely, private members bills faced too many hurdles for backbench MPs to have a meaningful impact over legislative process. Only a minority of private members bills become law, just 4.4% of those introduced between 2010 and 2024 did so. It is in the Lords where real attention was given to the assisted dying bill, a bill that critics say lacked appropriate safeguards when it was sent over from the commons at the end of 2024, more on this bill in a bit, though. Couldn't trustingly, since the House of Lords was reformed in 1999 and then again in 2026 with the removal of the hereditary peers, the upper chamber has grown more defiant since no party enjoys a majority, including the governing party. As of February 2026, the Labour government elected in July 2024 has suffered 130 defeats in the House of Lords, one of the feet included the adding of an amendment to the well-being and schools bill in January 2026, which if backed by the commons would ban social media for teens. This example shows that the laws can keep important issues on the legislative agenda. And with that in mind, let's now turn to the representation function. You can certainly make the case that the commons is better when it comes to resembling the people it serves compared to the House of Lords. The number of female MPs has risen from 118 in 2001 to 191 in 2015 to 208 in 2017 and to 220 in 2019 and to 263 in 2024. You do not have to remember all those stats. This one would be best. Out of 650 MPs, 41% are now female since the 2024 general election, whereas only 31% of peers are female. More than half of the peers in the House of Lords are over 70. Attempts to introduce a mandatory retirement age was debated during the passage of the hereditary peers act 2026, but was not included in the final bill. London and the South East are overrepresented in the Lords with 45% of peers residing in those locations. And of course, the commons is elected while the House of Lords is not. HMP serves a constituency, MPs hold regular surgeries for their constituents, MPs stand up for their constituents. Bailro Biro-Addy has raised the issue of health and equity between black and white women specifically in relation to maternity services. This issue was of importance to her Clapham and Brixton Hill constituents, many of whom are from BAME backgrounds. In 2026, Labour MP Charlotte Nichols told the commons of her rape ordeal and the struggle to get justice in a debate about speeding up the process for victims of sexual assault. This last example shows how MPs use their own personal experiences to advocate for vulnerable groups and important causes. They also have a track record of improving representative democracy. The representation of the people bill plans to a lower the voting age, B, clean up political donations, C, introduce automatic voter registration, and D, expand the list of valid voter ID, O and E, tackle intimidation towards parliamentary candidates. In contrast, the Lords is not immune from charges of playing politics with important pieces of legislation to the detriment of the common good. The aforementioned assisted dying bill passed by the elected chamber has been filibustered to death with 700 amendments suggested or debated far more than could realistically be processed before the session ends. One such amendment required terminally ill adults wishing to end their life to undertake a pregnancy test, both male and female. Is this a chamber interested in representing terminally ill people or one more interested in wrecking a bill passed by making it unworkable? Thus, we can make the case that the Commons is better for representation in a number of ways. Yet, yet, let's push back some what. The House of Lords has arguably a far better record at standing out for minority groups and vulnerable groups, including disabled people and those on low incomes, as shown with the parliamentary ping pong associated with the welfare reform bill in 2012 and the rejection of government plans to reduce working tax credits in 2015. The Lords held up the EU withdrawal act 2017 to add amendments confirming the post-Brexit rights of EU citizens. The Lords also proved more difficult and obstacle than the Commons for Boris Johnson in his attempts to pass the EU withdrawal act 2020 by adding a provision to protect child refugees. We can also call into question the advances made in the commons in regards to descriptive representation. Most of the increase in female representation to the commons can be explained by the fact that Labour won a landslide. The other parties are nowhere near to having parity of male female representation in the commons. Following the removal of the last 92 hereditary peers, who are mostly men, the lords now will likely become more descriptively representative. Indeed, early indicators suggest the percentage of women is likely to mirror that of the commons. Furthermore, we can't just judge representation by whether a chamber is elected, especially if the electoral system used to the commons, first past the post, is deeply unfair and unrepresented. 2024 marked one of the most disproportional general election results in parliamentary history. Labour won 34% of the vote, but 63% of the seats. Meanwhile, reform UK won 14% of the vote, but under 1% of the seats. 80% of the seats are controlled by either Labour or Conservative. MPs owe their selection as a candidate to their party, not their constituents. The majority of MPs vote on party lines, witnessed the muted rebellion over Labour plans to limit winter fuel payments in 2024. This all shows that the House of Commons is certainly no better than the House of Laws when it comes to representation and when it comes to standing up for people in the country. I suppose these kinds of tools of representation, rebellions and the like, are also tools of scrutiny, so let's segue into this last function. Granted, the House of Commons has a variety of tools, including select committees and urgent questions to scrutinise the executive. Select committees provide valuable scrutiny of government departments. There is a select committee to scrutinise the policy, administration and spending of each government department and following the right committee reforms. Chairs are now elected by their fellow MPs in a secret ballot rather than chosen by the party whips, a move which has increased their independence. The Home Affairs Select Committee led an inquiry into the Windrush scandal where the then-home secretary Amber Rudd denied the Home Office had targets for deportation of illegal immigrants, leaked email subsequently suggested that there were targets and that Rudd was aware of them. She resigned from her post taking full responsibility. This example demonstrates the ability of select committees to investigate the work of government and make it accountable for its actions. Urgent questions, meanwhile, are particularly useful for scrutinising the government. If the Speaker feels that an MP and their question is urgent and of public importance, then a question will force ministers to attend commons and answer at short notice. Speaker Lindsey Hoyle allowed 440 urgent questions or UQs in the 2019-2024 Parliament. If the government does not command a majority, scrutiny will be better in the commons. Parliament increasingly challenged the government between 2017-2019 when Theresa May's Conservatives ran a minority government the passing of the Ben Act in 2019 which required the government to seek an extension to Brexit after the initial 31st of October date marked the high water point of backbench influence over the government. This act came about when backbenchers took over the agenda of Parliament by using standing order 24 and emergency debate motion which then speaker Birkow allowed. Conversely, the Lords has three main limitations on its power of scrutiny and it's worth repeating them. Here, the Parliament Act 1949 limits its power to that of a one-year delay after which the government dominated commons can force through legislation. The Salisbury Convention bars the Lords from examining legislation contained in the Government's manifesto. This convention stems from the fact that the House of Lords is unelected and lacks legitimacy which is why the Salisbury Convention carries the force of law. The fact that Parliamentary ping pong was curtailed over the EU withdrawal act 2020 owed much to the Lords' own awareness that they were challenging a government with a large commons majority with a fresh mandate to get Brexit done. The Government back commons also claims a doctor's mandate, the right to act in an emergency, hence while the Steel Industry Act was passed in one day in April 2025 bypassing the usual Lords' committees and line-by-line revision of proposals. The third limitation of the Lords links to the rules of financial privilege which I mentioned earlier and these exist for the same reason as the Salisbury Convention. The Lords is unelected and thus it is thought that it should not be able to block a budget. Yet, despite these limitations, the Lords is certainly no worse than the commons when it comes to scrutiny. Let's start with the flaws of the elected commons, public bill committees and the commons. These are committees which examine a bill line-by-line and suggest amendments are ineffective because the Government whips can completely dominate proceedings with the committee majority accepting only Government amendments. Over 99% of Ministerial amendments succeed while the success rate for non-government amendments is below 1%. Let's turn to questions. Yes, we have urgent questions, but we also have PMQs, Prime Minister's questions. And these have been described as a punch and duty-shout by David Cameron. Governments often ask their own backbenchers, planted questions which are easy for the Prime Minister to answer. Government whips strongly encourage repetitious and memorable sound bites from the Government backbenchers allowing the PM the chance to answer easily. Tory MPs reminded David Cameron of his party's long-term economic plan before the 2015 general election and that have more to do with electioneering than scrutiny. Even urgent questions have been undermined by a focus on image rather than substance. A junior minister has often sent answer UQs rather than the Secretary of State. In January 2022 Boris Johnson sent his paymaster general to answer an urgent question relating to lockdown parties at number 10. Opposition MP shouted, "Where is he and shame?" The House of Lords provides many of the same scrutinising roles as the House of Commons such as questioning ministers and convening select committees. It has been particularly effective recently due to the absence of a government majority now that the hereditary peers have been removed. The Cross Benches, most of whom are chosen by the House of Lords Appointments Commission due to achievement outside politics have gained a pivotal status and hold the balance of power in the Chamber. Meanwhile, a government with a large majority will tend to limit the effectiveness of scrutiny in the House of Commons. Between 2019 to 2024 the ATC conserved to majority in the Commons faced little scrutiny in the Commons but far more in the Lords. This was also evident when the government, the then government, suffered multiple defeats on its policing bill in January 2022, a bill that had largely sailed through the Commons. The Lords is more likely to take the government to task over bad policy. In September 2023 it blocked plans to weaken environmental pollution rules in House building. Likewise, the Labour government elected in 2024 has not suffered a single defeat in the House of Commons yet has been defeated on 130 occasions between the general election and February 2026. Its flagship employment's rights bill faced far greater scrutiny by the Lords than it did the Commons with peers adding amendments to soften the impact on employers. Thus, when it comes to scrutiny, the House of Commons is more independent, more probing and less fearful of government. There you have it then, the House of Lords is better than the Commons at performing its functions. In terms of legislation, it focuses far more on quality rather than quantity. While it is unelected, it has just a good reputation at fighting for lost causes as its sister chamber does, which itself is elected using an arcane electoral system. In relation to scrutiny, the absence of a government majority and the existence of cross benches allow for better challenges to government policy in the Lords than the executive dominated Commons. I hope you found this update of worth. If you did and if you haven't already, why not subscribe to Plus Plus Plus Plus. Yes, for £1.99 a month, just £1.99 a month, you get access to all 223 shows at the time of recording, the entire back catalogue of learning, just in time for your end of year exams. No hidden fees, cancel anytime, deets in the show notes. So check it out. Speak to you later in the month, peeps.