-the Westminster model is the traditional way of understanding British politics. As the name suggests, it puts parliament at the heart of the British political system - the guiding principle of the constitution is that parliament has supreme law-making authority.
-the key features of the Westminster model are parliamentary sovereignty, an uncodified constitution, cabinet govt, the FPTP electoral system, a two-party system and a unitary
state.
-the Westminster model not only describes the British political system, but also claims or assumes that it is the model of how a political system should operate.
Two of its main virtues are said to be:
-Representative govt - Govt takes place through parliament, where decisions are taken by elected representatives of the people. The people do not make decisions on public policy directly, electing MPs to do so on their behalf.
-Responsible govt - The govt is accountable to
parliament for its actions, and accountable to the people through elections. Collective responsibility means that the govt can be forced to resign by parliament. Individual ministerial responsibility means that ministers must account for their actions in parliament. Voters can remove the govt at general elections.
-the usefulness of the Westminster model as a description of how the British political system works is disputed.
-there is significant disparity between the ideal presented by
the model and the reality.
-in particular,there is a clear imbalance in the relationship between the executive and legislature.
-a parliamentary majority, party discipline in the HofC and govt control of the parliamentary timetable enable the executive to dominate parliament.
-the HofC is a democratically elected chamber consisting of 650 MPs. Each MP is elected in a single-member constituency by FPTP. The number of MPs is not fixed, but can change
following reviews of parliamentary constituencies. Conservative proposals to reduce the number of MPs to 600 were defeated in the Commons in 2013.
-in this chamber, the governing party (or parties) sit on the benches to the right of the Speaker's chair, and member of opposition parties on the benches to its left. More than 100 MPs hold ministerial positions in the govt.
-the main opposition party appoints 'shadow ministers' to confront their rivals. Ministers and shadow ministers are
known as frontbenchers because they occupy the benches closest to the floor of the chamber.
-the majority of MPs have no ministerial or shadow ministerial posts and are known as backbenchers.
-almost all MPs are elected as a representative of a political party. 2 independent MPs were elected in 2005,but a further 13 resigned from, or were expelled by, their party during the 2005-10 parliament. Only one independent, Lady Sylvia Hermon in Down North, was elected in 2010.
-the party
system in the HofC has traditionally been strong. Each party appoints a number of MPs to act as whips.
They have 3 main roles:
-ensuring that MPs attend parliamentary divisions (votes), or approving the absence of MPs when they vote will not be required.
-issuing instructions on how MPs should vote. Each week MPs receive instructions on their attendance (also known as a whip). Debates where there will be a vote are underlined on this letter. A 'three-line whip' is a strict instruction
to attend and vote according to the party line, or face disciplinary action. It is usually issued on only the most important divisions.
-enforcing discipline within the parliamentary party. The whips seek to persuade wavering MPs to vote with their party by providing assurances, making offers and issuing threats. Rebels MPs may be expelled from the parliamentary party by having the whip withdrawn.
-legislation follows an established process of debate,
scrutiny and amendment.
-most legislation originates in the House of Commons, but some bills on non-controversial or complex matters of law are introduced in the House of Lords.
The main stages in the legislative process for a bill introduced in the Commons (except a money bill) are as follows:
-first reading - The formal presentation of the title of the bill on the floor of the house by a minister from the responsible department. There is no debate or vote at this stage.
-second
reading - The main debate on the principle of the bill. The govt minister explains and justifies the objectives of the bill, the shadow minister responds and backbenchers contribute to the debate. If the bill is contested, a vote is taken. Govt defeats at second reading stage are extremely rare, occurring only twice since 1945.
-committee stage - Bills are sent to a public bill committee - known as a standing committee until 2006 - where detailed scrutiny of each clause occurs and amendments
can be made. A new public bill is established for each bill, and is named after it. Once the bill has completed this stage, that committee is dissolved. In the 2010-12 session, there were 36 public bill committees. The membership of the committee, which ranges from 16-50, reflects party strength in the Commons and whips instruct MPs how to vote. Public bill committees may take evidence from outside experts. Finance bills and bills of a particular constitutional significance are scrutinised on
the floor of the house, in a Committee of the Whole House.
-report stage - amendments made in committee are considered by the full house. It may accept, reject or alter them. The Major govt lost a report stage vote on the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, but then made the issue of a matter of confidence and won by 40 votes.
-third reading - This is a debate on the amended bill on the floor of the house. No further amendments are permitted.
-house of lords stages - The bill is sent to the
HofL, where it follows the same procedure. If amendments to the bill are made in the Lords, the Commons may agree to them, reject them or amend them further. A bill may go back and forth between the two houses in a process known as 'parliamentary ping pong'. If agreement cannot be reached, the govt must decide whether to accept changes made by the Lords, drop the bill or invoke the Parliament Act.
-two other types of legislative proposals are also
noteworthy: private members' bills and secondary legislation.
-legislative proposals initiated by backbench MPs rather than by the govt are known as private members' bills.
-early in each parliamentary session, 20 names of MPs who wish to introduce a bill are drawn in a ballot. Some will already have a cause they wish to pursue; others will take soundings from lobbyists or their party.
-MPs can also introduce Ten Minute Rule bills, which offer a brief slot to introduce a legislative
proposal, but few get beyond this first hurdle.
-a handful of private members' bills become law in each parliamentary session. These tend to enjoy the support, or benevolent neutrality, of the govt.
-time constraints and the difficulty of persuading other MPs to back a proposal mean that most fall at an early stage.
-two landmark laws to originate as private members' bills were the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 and the Abortion Act 1967. Both had govt support. More recent
examples include the Autism Act 2009 and the Sustainable Communities Act 2006, which were promoted by lobbying organisations and supported by govt.
-the authority to issue secondary legislation in specific policy areas is delegated by parliament to govt ministers. Some 2,500 pieces of secondary legislation, known as statutory instruments,are issued each year on matters such as immigration, taxation and education.
-parliamentary scrutiny is limited to examination by the statutory
instruments committee.
In theory, the UK parliament can make, amend or repeal any laws it chooses. In practice, the situation is very different. The govt is responsible for most of the laws passed by parliament.
Philip Norton, an academic expert on parliament and member of the HofL, developed a threefold classification of legislatures:
-policy-making legislatures - These amend or reject legislative proposals made by the executive, and can put forward
alternative bills.
-policy-influence legislatures - These can modify or reject legislative proposals from the executive but are unable to develop extensive legislative proposals of their own.
-legislatures with little or no policy influence - These are unable to modify or veto legislative proposals from the executive, and cannot formulate meaningful alternative policy proposals of their own.
The UK parliament is a policy-influencing legislature. Law making occurs through, not by,
parliament. It has only modest influence over policy and reacts to govt proposals rather than taking the lead in formulating policy. Parliament can vote against govt bills and pass amendments. But parliament's effectiveness in making and scrutinising law is limited by the dominance of the executive.
This is evidenced by:
-govt bills - Most bills that come before parliament originate from the govt. Private members' bills have little chance of success unless they have govt
backing.
-parliamentary timetable - The executive controls much of the legislative timetable and can use 'guillotine motions' to curtail debate.
-party disciple - The whip system ensures that govt proposals are rarely defeated and that most amendments are acceptable to it.
-house of lords - The upper house scrutinises and revises legislation, but does not alter the key features of most bills.
-Select Committees have proved more effective at
scrutinising the actions of the executive and holding it to account.
-departmental select committees were created in 1979 to scrutinise the policy, administration and expenditure of govt departments. There were 19 departmental select committees in 2013.
-membership of select committees is fixed at 11 backbench MPs and reflects the party balance in the Commons.
-chairs of committees are allocated to parties according to their relative strength. Since the implementation of the Wright
Committee recommendation in 2010, select committee chairs are elected by all MPs in a secret ballot using the alternative vote system. Successful candidates often have a reputation for independence.
-members of select committees are elected by secret ballot within party groups. Prior to 2010, members were appointed by party whips.
-since a unanimous select committee report is likely to carry maximum weight, members aim to strike compromises across party lines.
-over time, committee
members can become more expert in their chosen field than the relevant ministers, who usually have short tenures in a specific office.
-select committees decide which issues they are going to examine. They have wide powers to summon witnesses and to examine restricted documents.
-committees spend much of their time questioning ministers, officials and outside experts. Some witnesses are, however, reluctant to provide full and frank evidence.
-the govt must respond to select committee
reports but is not required to accept their recommendations. A study by the Constitution Unit (2011) found that govts accept around 40% of select committee recommendations. Many of these recommend limited policy change.
Overall effect:
-the select committee system has improved and extended parliament's scrutiny of the executive.
-committees highlight important issues, bring expert contributions to topical debates, hold the govt accountable for policy problems and issue evidence-based
recommendations.
-the remit of select committees has been widened in recent years. They now scrutinise legislation that has come into force and hold hearings on some public appointments.
-election of select committee chairs and members has enhanced their independence.
-All-women shortlist: These were used by Labour in the 1997, 2005 and 2010 general elections. Some constituency Labour parties were required to select their parliamentary candidate
from a list consisting only of women. This boosted significantly the number of female Labour MPs elected in 1997. The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act (2002) permits political parties to use positive measures to reduce inequality in the number if women elected to parliament. All-women shortlists are 'equality guarantees': they ensure the a woman candidate will be selected in a constituency.
-Priority lists: David Cameron introduced a priority list (the 'A' list) in 2005 for the
top 100 Conservative target seats. This was an 'equality promotion' initiative that set a general target of more women MPs, but did not guarantee that women would be selected in winnable seats. Constituency associations chosen from a priority list of aspirant candidates, half of whom were women. From 2006, constituency associations were required to draw up shortlists, on which at least half the aspirant candidates were women. In 2010, 49 women Conservative MPs were elected, although only 19 of
them had been on the 'A list'.
Overview:
-these 'demand-side' initiatives have helped to increase the number of women MPs, but 'supply-side' obstacles remain. Career choices, family issues, money and a lack of political connections may prevent women from putting themselves forward as candidates. The 2010 speaker's conference on parliamentary representation recommend that if the number of women MPs did not increase significantly at that year's election (the proportion rose from 20% to 22%),
then equality guarantees should be considered.
-the size, or absence, of a majority for the governing party in the House of Commons is an important factor in the relationship between the legislature and the executive.
-the FPTP system often, but not always, delivers a working majority for the party that wins most votes in a general election.
-a govt with a large majority is in a commanding position, able to push its legislation through parliament by
utilising the whip system and controlling the parliamentary timetable.
-the larger a govt's majority, the less likely it is that the other parties in the Commons will be able to defeat or amend govt bills. The ability of backbenchers to influence policy is also limited because a govt with a substantial majority can absorb dissent within its own ranks.
-with a majority of 167 at the 2001 election, the Blair govt survived large rebellions for Labour backbenchers on Iraq, tuition fees and
foundation hospitals. Within months of its majority being cut to 65 at the 2005 election, the govt suffered its first Commons defeat.
-a governing party that has a slender majority, or none at all, can find itself in a precarious position of a hung parliament, often resulting in a minority or coalition govt.
-in a minority govt, the party with the largest number of seats governs alone. It may be able to persuade a smaller party not to vote against it on key measures such as the budget or
Queen's speech. This is known as 'confidence and supply' deal. But it must find parliamentary majorities on a bill-by-bill basis. A minority govt may be relatively stable in the short term, particularly if other parties do not want another general election. But it is difficult to sustain a minority govt for long.
There have been 3 postwar minority govts:
-Wilson govt - Harold Wilson's Labour govt had no majority after the Feb 1974 election. Wilson called another election that October and
secured a majority of 3 seats.
-Callaghan govt - James Callaghan succeeded Wilson as Labour PM in 1976, but his majority disappeared after by-election defeats. Under the 1977-78 'Lib-Lab pact', the Liberals supported the govt on key votes in the Commons.
-Conservative govt - John Major's govt lost its majority in 1996 following by-election defeats and defections. It was supported by Ulster Unionist MPs on some divisions, but there was no formal deal.
-MPs
vote with their party on the overwhelming majority of divisions in the Commons. When a party rebellion occurs, it is usually small and can be easily absorbed by a govt with a working majority. But rebellions have become more frequent in recent decades, and some have been dramatic.
-in the 1950s and 60s, the Conservative govts of Eden, Macmillan and Douglas-Home suffered no defeats in the Commons. Things changed in the 1970s when ideological divisions within the Labour and Conservative parties
became more pronounced.
-Heath Govt, 1970-74: A rebellion by 39 Conservatives meant that European Communities Act (1972) was passed only because 69 Labour MPs defied a three-line whip.
-Wilson (1974-76) and Callaghan (1976-79) Govts: Labour operated with either a slender parliamentary majority or none at all. 45% of Labour MPs rebelled and the govt suffered 59 defeats in the Commons, the final one on a motion of no confidence.
-Major Govt, 1992-97: Conservative rebellions on the
Maastricht Treaty (1992-93) saw Major call a confidence motion to force the treaty through the Commons. Further rebellions followed on gun control and VAT on domestic fuel.
-Blair (1997-2007) and Brown (2007-2010) Govts: The rebellion by 139 Labour MPs on the 2003 vote on the invasion of Iraq was the largest in a governing party in modern British politics. There were also significant rebellions on foundation hospitals (65 rebels) in 2003 and university tuition fees (72 rebels) in 2005.
Research shows that the 2005-2010 parliament was the most rebellious of the postwar era. Rebellions by Labour occurred on 28% of divisions and 174 Labour MPs voted against the party line at least once. The govt was defeated on 90-day detention of terrorist suspects (2005), and Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (2006)and the right of Gurkhas to live in the UK (2009). Labour needed support from other parties to win votes on the Education Bill (2006), renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system,
and the Counter Terrorism Bill (2008).
-Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition govt, 2010-2015: In the long 2010-12 parliamentary session, it was calculated that 153 MPs from the coalition parties voted against the whip and rebellions occurred on 44% of divisions. But Conservative and LibDem MPs tended to rebel on different issues. Conservative MPs rebelled on constitutional and EU votes. In July 2012, 91 Conservatives opposed the HoL Bill and 81 Conservatives voted for a referendum on EU
membership in October 2011. The govt's first significant defeat came on a 2012 motion calling for a cut in the EU budget when 53 Conservatives voted with Labour. LibDem MPs rebelled most frequently on welfare and social policy. Their largest rebellion (27 MPs) was on university tuition fees in December 2010. Differences between the two parties were also evident when, on a free vote, 137 Conservatives but only 4 LibDems opposed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in February 2013).
-ideological
differences between the Conservatives and LibDems provide a partial explanation for the high level of dissent since 2010. Significantly, coalition MPs do not feel as obliged to support the coalition agreement as they would their party's manifesto.
-the incentives for Conservative MPs to toe the party lie are also reduced if they believe that their promotion prospects are reduced because govt positions must be given to LibDems.
-MPs may also exert influence through more subtle methods than
rebellion. If the whips expect significant opposition to a measure, the govt may withdraw or revise it rather than risk defeat or cause ill-will by exerting pressure on MPs.
-in 2008, Labour ministers made important concessions to opponents of the budget proposals to abolish the 10% income tax band.
-The Wakeham Report 2000 - This report of the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords proposed that the majority of peers be appointed, with 20%
recommended by an independent appointments body. Between 12% and 35% would be elected by proportional representation. The remaining hereditary peers would be removed.
-White Paper 2001 - This proposed that 20% of peers be elected, but this figure was criticised for being too low and was dropped. MPs were given a free vote in February 2003 on seven options proposed by a parliamentary joint committee. None attracted majority support. In the Lords, peers voted for a wholly appointed
house.
-White Paper 2003 - This proposed a wholly appointed house, but was widely criticised.
-White Paper 2007 - This proposed a hybrid house: 50% appointed and 50% elected. A series of votes on reform options were held in parliament. A wholly elected house was approved, as was the 80% elected option. But some MPs who backed the former were trying to wreck the process. The Lords again voted for a wholly appointed house.
-White Paper 2008 - This set out how a wholly elected or 80%
elected house might function.
-Joint Committee of Both Houses of Parliament 2012 - This was established by the Conservative-LibDem coalition to issue proposals on a wholly or mainly elected Lords. A majority of the committee supported an 80% elected upper house, but 12 of its 26 members issued an alternative report.
-House of Lords Bill 2012 - This proposed that, after a transitional period, a reformed second chamber would consist of 360 elected members, 90 appointed members, 12 bishops
and 8 'ministerial members'. Elected members would serve non-renewable 15-year terms. One-third of seats would be elected by proportional representation on the same date as elections for the House of Commons. Appointed members would be nominated by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The Commons approved the second reading of the bill by 462 votes to 124 in July 2012. However, 91 Conservative MPs rebelled and Labour indicated that it would vote against a 'programme motion' that would
ensure speedy passage of the bill. With a majority unlikely, the govt abandoned the bill.
-supporters of a wholly or mainly elected upper house claim that only elections bring legitimacy and that an elected house would be able able to challenge executive power.
-if proportional representation were used, no single party would dominate and long non-renewable terms in the office would encourage members to be independent.
-those favouring an appointed house note that the Lords has a
different role to the Commons. The Commons has 'input legitimacy' because of its composition (it is directly elected), whereas the Lords has 'output legitimacy' because of what it delivers (its scrutiny produces better quality legislation).
-an elected upper chamber would produce competing claims of legitimacy and legislative gridlock. Elections would strengthen the role of parties in the upper house and the expertise of crossbenchers would be lost.
-there is broad agreement on removing
the mainly hereditary peers, strengthening the Appointments Commission and reducing the size of the house.
-votes in the Commons under Labour and the coalition suggest that a majority of MPs support in principle a wholly or mainly elected upper house.
-but the debates revealed that many fear that an elected upper house would rival the Commons. Differences over the details of reform, for example, the presence of bishops, and whether there should be a referendum, also limit the prospects
of consensus.
-in the absence of further reform, the coalition govt appointed additional Conservative and LibDem peers so that the chamber better reflected the share of the vote won by parties in 2010.