Comparative powers of the Commons and Lords | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: 5 days ago
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 60 to 75 minutes
This Comparative powers of the Commons and Lords A-Level Politics revision page examines why the two chambers of Parliament are not equal in power. You need to understand the powers reserved to the House of Commons, the important but more limited powers of the House of Lords, and why formal power does not always determine political influence. Building on the structure and functions of Parliament, this topic prepares you to analyse how the two Houses interact during law-making.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain the exclusive powers held by the House of Commons.
Explain the main powers exercised by the House of Lords.
Explain how the Parliament Acts, financial privilege and the Salisbury Convention limit the Lords.
Compare the formal powers of the Commons and Lords.
Analyse why the Lords can exercise significant influence despite its weaker constitutional position.
Evaluate the relative power of the two Houses.
Revision Notes đź“š
Comparative powers of the Commons and Lords A-Level Politics revision: the key debate
The Edexcel specification requires you to know the exclusive powers of the House of Commons, the main powers of the House of Lords, and the debate about their relative power. It identifies the Commons as the primary, directly elected chamber and the Lords as the second, non-directly elected chamber.
The most important starting point is simple:
The House of Commons is formally more powerful than the House of Lords, but the Lords can still exercise considerable political influence.
A high-level answer must therefore distinguish between:
formal or constitutional power, meaning what a chamber is legally or constitutionally able to do;
practical influence, meaning how successfully a chamber can persuade, pressure or force government to reconsider its actions.
This distinction prevents the common mistake of assuming that the House which records the most government defeats must automatically be the most powerful.
Why the House of Commons is the primary chamber
The House of Commons has greater constitutional authority because it is directly elected.
MPs receive a democratic mandate from voters. This gives the Commons greater democratic legitimacy when there is disagreement between the two Houses.
The Lords is not directly elected. Its unelected character therefore places limits on how far it can legitimately challenge decisions taken by MPs.
The difference in democratic legitimacy underpins many of the Commons' constitutional advantages.
The exclusive powers of the House of Commons
Some powers belong specifically to the Commons rather than being shared equally with the Lords.
The most important are:
confidence
supply and financial control
the ultimate ability to prevail over the Lords on legislation
These powers help explain why the Commons remains constitutionally dominant.
1. Confidence: the Commons can determine whether a government survives
One of the most important exclusive Commons powers concerns confidence.
The Edexcel specification defines confidence and supply partly in terms of the right to remove the government and the right to grant or withhold funding.
A government must be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons.
This means that the Commons has the constitutional authority to determine whether a government can remain in office.
The House of Lords does not possess an equivalent power.
Why confidence is so significant
Government in the UK depends on support in the Commons.
If a government cannot maintain sufficient Commons support, its ability to govern is fundamentally threatened.
This gives the Commons power over the existence of the government itself, not merely over individual pieces of legislation.
The significance of backbench MPs in determining whether a government can maintain parliamentary support is developed further in backbench influence.
2. Supply: the Commons controls government finance
The second crucial exclusive power concerns supply, meaning the provision of public money needed for government.
The government needs Commons approval for taxation and expenditure.
The principle of Commons financial privilege means that the Lords does not possess the same power over financial legislation.
Edexcel mark schemes have specifically contrasted the two Houses by identifying the Commons' ability to control finance and the Lords' inability to amend finance legislation in the same way.
This is extremely important because a government cannot operate effectively without money.
Why financial control matters
A chamber that can withhold funding has substantial leverage over the Executive.
The Commons therefore possesses powers that affect both:
whether the government can remain in office;
whether the government can obtain the resources needed to implement its policies.
Together, confidence and supply place the Commons in a stronger constitutional position than the Lords.
3. The Commons has the final advantage over legislation
Both Houses participate in legislation, but their legislative powers are unequal.
The Commons can ultimately prevail over opposition from the Lords in circumstances covered by the Parliament Acts.
The constitutional significance of the Parliament Acts is also covered through the historical development of the constitution.
The Lords can delay, amend and challenge legislation, but it does not possess an equal general veto over legislation.
Edexcel mark schemes have explicitly contrasted the chambers by stating that the Lords is constrained by the Parliament Acts, financial privilege and the Salisbury Convention, while the Commons can ultimately reject Lords amendments and prevail.
Why this gives the Commons greater power
Imagine that:
the Lords proposes an amendment;
the Commons rejects that amendment;
the Lords continues to object.
The disagreement may place political pressure on the government and force further debate, but the Commons has the stronger constitutional position.
This means Lords influence is often about delay, persuasion and forcing reconsideration, rather than having the final word.
The Parliament Acts
The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949Â significantly restrict the ability of the Lords permanently to block legislation.
For most public legislation, the Lords can delay rather than exercise an indefinite veto. Edexcel assessment material identifies the Lords' ability to delay legislation for up to one year as an important source of influence, while still recognising the ultimate superiority of the Commons.
This produces an important distinction:
Delay can be politically powerful even when it is not an absolute veto.
A one-year delay may:
give opponents more time to organise;
attract additional political or media attention;
allow public opinion to change;
encourage the government to compromise;
make the government reconsider whether a proposal is worth pursuing.
The Commons may therefore have the final constitutional advantage while the Lords can still make exercising that advantage politically costly.
Financial privilege
The Commons has particular authority over taxation and public expenditure.
This is usually described as financial privilege.
The Lords cannot simply claim equal authority with the Commons over financial measures.
This reinforces the democratic principle that decisions about taxation and public money should ultimately be controlled by elected representatives.
The Salisbury Convention
The Salisbury Convention is another important limitation on Lords power.
Under the convention, the House of Lords does not normally block or delay legislation implementing commitments contained in the governing party's election manifesto.
The significance of this convention within the passage of bills is examined more fully in Commons-Lords interaction during law-making.
Its importance for comparative power is that it places an additional restraint on the Lords which does not apply in the same way to the Commons.
If a government can claim that a proposal has been endorsed through an election manifesto, the unelected Lords has a weaker basis for obstructing it.
Summary of the Commons' exclusive advantages
Commons power | Why it matters | Does the Lords have an equivalent? |
Confidence | Determines whether a government can continue in office | No |
Supply | Controls whether government receives necessary funding | No equivalent power |
Financial privilege | Gives Commons superiority over taxation and spending legislation | Lords is restricted |
Final legislative advantage | Commons can ultimately prevail over Lords opposition in important circumstances | Lords generally delays rather than exercises an equal veto |
Democratic mandate | MPs are directly elected | Lords is not directly elected |
These powers provide the strongest evidence that the Commons is the dominant chamber.
The main powers of the House of Lords
The Lords is weaker than the Commons, but describing it as powerless would be a serious mistake.
Its main powers include:
examining legislation in detail;
proposing amendments;
delaying legislation;
defeating government proposals in the chamber;
scrutinising government;
using its independence and expertise to pressure ministers into reconsidering proposals.
Its strength often lies less in its ability to impose a final decision and more in its ability to make government think again.
1. The power to scrutinise and revise legislation
The House of Lords is an important revising chamber.
Peers examine bills, debate their provisions and propose amendments.
The Lords can be particularly influential because:
many members possess specialist knowledge;
party discipline tends to be weaker;
crossbenchers do not belong to a political party;
the government does not normally possess an automatic majority in the chamber;
peers may have more time for detailed legislative scrutiny.
This means legislation that passes through a government-controlled Commons may receive more sustained challenge when it reaches the Lords.
The detailed stages of this process are explored in the passage of bills through Parliament.
2. The power to amend legislation
The Lords can propose amendments to bills.
Although the Commons can ultimately reject Lords amendments, amendments can still be politically significant.
They may:
expose weaknesses in a bill;
attract cross-party support;
encourage government concessions;
force ministers to justify their position;
create repeated exchanges between the two Houses.
Therefore, the fact that the Commons has the final advantage does not mean that Lords amendments are irrelevant.
Government may choose compromise rather than insist repeatedly on its original position.
3. The power to delay legislation
The Lords can delay much legislation.
This is weaker than a permanent veto, but delay may still matter enormously.
A government may have:
a limited amount of parliamentary time;
other legislation it wants to pass;
concerns about political controversy;
a desire to avoid prolonged conflict with the Lords.
Delay therefore creates bargaining power.
The Lords' power is best described as an ability to obstruct and influence, rather than an equal ability to determine the final outcome.
4. The power to defeat the government
Governments suffer defeats in the House of Lords more frequently than in the Commons.
This does not mean the Lords is formally the stronger chamber.
Instead, it reflects important differences between the two Houses.
Why defeats are more common in the Lords
The government normally finds the Lords harder to control because:
it does not usually possess a majority there;
party loyalty is weaker;
crossbenchers can influence outcomes;
peers appointed for life are less affected by some forms of political pressure or career advancement.
Edexcel assessment material has used government defeat figures to illustrate this contrast. For example, the 2023 mark scheme referred to 114 government defeats in the Lords during the 2019 to 2021 session as evidence of the chamber's capacity to challenge government.
The important examination point is not simply to memorise a number. It is to explain why the pattern of defeats matters.
A government that expects to lose in the Lords may alter its proposals before a defeat occurs.
Formal power versus practical influence
This distinction is at the heart of the topic.
Formal constitutional power | Practical political influence |
What a chamber is ultimately entitled to do | How much a chamber changes government behaviour |
Strongly favours the Commons | Can sometimes favour the Lords |
Includes confidence and supply | Includes forcing concessions |
Includes Commons superiority over finance | Includes amendments and defeats |
Includes final legislative advantage | Includes delay and detailed scrutiny |
A sophisticated argument might therefore say:
The Commons has greater power, but the Lords may sometimes exercise greater independence.
Those are not contradictory statements.
Why the Commons is more powerful overall
There are several strong reasons for regarding the Commons as the dominant House.
Democratic legitimacy
The Commons is directly elected.
If the Houses disagree, MPs can claim that their authority comes from voters.
The Lords cannot make the same claim.
This matters because greater formal Lords power without electoral legitimacy could create a constitutional conflict over which chamber has the stronger democratic mandate.
Confidence and supply
Only the Commons has the decisive role in maintaining or removing the government and providing it with funding.
These are fundamental powers which the Lords cannot match.
The Commons can overturn Lords amendments
Lords amendments can be rejected by the Commons.
This places a clear limit on the ability of the second chamber to impose its preferences.
Parliament Acts
The Lords cannot indefinitely prevent the Commons from enacting most legislation where the Parliament Acts apply.
Salisbury Convention
The Lords accepts a constitutional restraint on obstructing manifesto commitments.
Together, these factors mean that the Commons possesses greater formal power.
Why the Lords can sometimes appear more influential
Despite this formal weakness, there are important arguments in the other direction.
The government is less dominant in the Lords
A government with a Commons majority may be able to win most Commons votes through party discipline.
The same government does not normally control the Lords in the same way.
This can make the Lords a more difficult obstacle in day-to-day politics.
Party loyalty is weaker
Peers may be more willing than MPs to oppose their party.
Crossbenchers increase this independence further.
The result is less predictable voting behaviour.
Peers are less affected by electoral pressures
Members of the Lords do not need to campaign for constituency re-election.
This may allow them to challenge policies which are politically difficult or electorally unpopular.
Greater time and specialism
The Lords can devote substantial attention to detailed legislative revision.
It may therefore exercise significant influence over the quality and detail of legislation even though it cannot ultimately claim supremacy over the Commons.
Power is not the same as frequency of government defeat
This is one of the most important analytical points in the topic.
Suppose a government loses:
many votes in the Lords;
very few votes in the Commons.
It might be tempting to conclude that the Lords is more powerful.
That conclusion would be too simple.
A Commons defeat is potentially much more serious because:
the government depends on Commons confidence;
Commons votes have greater democratic authority;
the Commons has stronger powers over legislation and finance.
The frequency of defeats and the constitutional significance of defeats are therefore different measures.
The importance of government majorities
The relative influence of the chambers can also depend on political circumstances.
A government with a large and disciplined Commons majority may dominate the elected chamber.
In those circumstances:
Commons rebellions may be insufficient to defeat the government;
the Lords may become the more frequent source of challenge;
Lords amendments may attract more attention.
A government with a small or insecure Commons majority faces a different situation.
Individual backbench MPs can become much more influential because the government needs their votes.
This connects directly with backbenchers and the Executive and the wider debate about executive dominance of Parliament.
Comparing the two Houses directly
Area of power | House of Commons | House of Lords | Which is stronger? |
Democratic legitimacy | Directly elected | Not directly elected | Commons |
Confidence | Can determine government's survival | No equivalent power | Commons |
Supply and finance | Controls supply and has financial privilege | Restricted | Commons |
Final say over legislation | Can ultimately prevail in key circumstances | Can delay and amend but is restricted | Commons |
Government defeats | Often fewer when government has a secure majority | Frequently more common | Lords may be more assertive |
Legislative revision | Can amend and scrutinise | Often particularly active in detailed revision | Lords may exercise greater practical influence |
Party independence | Often restricted by strong party discipline | Generally greater, including crossbenchers | Lords |
Ability to force reconsideration | Strong if government faces Commons rebellion | Strong through amendment, delay and defeats | Depends on circumstances |
Does the Lords' lack of formal power make it ineffective?
Not necessarily.
A chamber does not need the final word in order to influence government.
If ministers expect the Lords to:
delay a bill;
defeat a proposal;
propose persuasive amendments;
expose weaknesses in legislation;
they may negotiate or change policy before the process reaches its conclusion.
This is sometimes described as anticipatory influence. The key idea is straightforward: government changes its behaviour because it expects opposition.
For examination purposes, however, the final constitutional hierarchy remains important.
The Lords can often force the government to reconsider.
The Commons can ultimately force the government to accept defeat.
That is a major difference.
Does greater independence make the Lords more powerful?
Greater independence can make the Lords more assertive, but not necessarily more powerful overall.
For example:
weaker party control may increase the likelihood of government defeats;
more specialist members may make Lords objections persuasive;
crossbenchers may create unpredictable voting coalitions.
However:
the Commons can reject Lords amendments;
the Lords is restricted by convention and statute;
the Lords lacks an electoral mandate;
the government survives or falls according to Commons confidence.
The best judgement therefore distinguishes assertiveness from constitutional supremacy.
Overall judgement on the relative power of the two Houses
The House of Commons is clearly the more powerful chamber in formal constitutional terms.
Its dominance rests principally on:
direct election and democratic legitimacy;
confidence and supply;
financial privilege;
the ability ultimately to prevail over the Lords on legislation;
the limitations placed upon the Lords by statute and convention.
However, the gap between the two Houses is smaller if power is measured by day-to-day influence on government.
The Lords can be highly effective at forcing reconsideration because the government does not normally possess a majority there, party discipline is weaker and peers can devote considerable attention to legislative revision.
The most convincing overall conclusion is therefore:
The Commons possesses greater ultimate power, while the Lords possesses significant conditional influence.
The Lords is particularly influential when its objections are persuasive, attract support beyond the chamber or threaten politically costly delay. Yet when disagreement cannot be resolved, the constitutional system ultimately gives the elected Commons the stronger position.
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint:Â Start from the correct overall constitutional relationship. In 2019, examiners reported that the great majority of candidates correctly recognised that the Commons possesses greater powers than the Lords. Stronger answers then examined why the Lords has nevertheless become an assertive chamber rather than treating formal power as the end of the debate.
Examiner hint:Â Compare rather than describe. Strong answers do not write everything they know about the Commons and then everything they know about the Lords. They pair competing points directly, for example Commons legislative supremacy against Lords independence and capacity to force reconsideration.
Examiner hint:Â Use evidence to support a comparison. Examiner feedback has praised responses that compared the frequency of government defeats in the two chambers and then explained what those differences revealed about influence. Simply quoting defeat figures without analysing their significance is not enough.
Examiner hint:Â Keep a precise focus on the function or power named in the question. Examiner feedback from 2022 identified students who drifted from the question of shaping legislation into general examples of government scrutiny. Make sure your evidence actually demonstrates the particular power you are evaluating.
Examiner hint:Â Build mini-judgements throughout the essay. The 2023 examiner report praised the strongest comparative answers for reaching a substantiated judgement at the end of each area of comparison, creating a logical path towards the final conclusion.
Examiner hint:Â A strong conclusion should follow naturally from the argument. If your paragraphs repeatedly demonstrate Commons superiority in ultimate constitutional authority but your conclusion suddenly claims the Lords is more powerful because it records more defeats, the judgement is inconsistent.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying the Commons and Lords have equal powers
Why this is incorrect: The UK Parliament is bicameral, but the two chambers are not constitutionally equal. The Commons has exclusive powers relating to confidence and supply and possesses the stronger position over legislation.
How to improve: Begin comparisons by identifying the Commons as the primary chamber, then ask how far Lords influence reduces the significance of this formal superiority.
Mistake: Saying the Lords can permanently veto ordinary government legislation
Why this is incorrect: The Lords can amend, challenge and delay legislation, but its powers are restricted by the Parliament Acts and constitutional conventions.
How to improve: Use precise verbs. Write that the Lords can delay, amend, challenge or force reconsideration, rather than simply saying it can always "block" legislation.
Mistake: Assuming more government defeats means more constitutional power
Why this is incorrect: Governments may lose more frequently in the Lords because they lack a majority there, but Commons defeats can carry much greater constitutional significance.
How to improve: Separate frequency of defeat from importance of defeat.
Mistake: Forgetting confidence and supply
Why this is incorrect: These are among the clearest exclusive powers of the Commons and provide some of the strongest evidence for Commons superiority.
How to improve: When planning any essay on comparative power, write C + SÂ at the top of your plan as a reminder to consider confidence and supply.
Mistake: Treating the Salisbury Convention as a law
Why this is incorrect: The Salisbury Convention is a constitutional convention, not a statute.
How to improve: Distinguish statutory constraints such as the Parliament Acts from conventional constraints such as Salisbury.
Mistake: Saying the Lords is powerless because it is unelected
Why this is incorrect: The Lords has substantial powers of amendment, delay and scrutiny and can frequently defeat government proposals.
How to improve: Distinguish between ultimate power and influence. The Commons has more of the first, while the Lords can possess significant amounts of the second.
Mistake: Writing two separate essays instead of making comparisons
Why this is incorrect: A question about relative power requires direct comparison. Separate descriptions make it difficult to demonstrate analysis.
How to improve: Build paragraphs around paired debates such as:
Commons final say vs Lords power of delayCommons democratic legitimacy vs Lords independenceCommons confidence and supply vs Lords ability to force reconsideration
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
The shorter questions below are designed as stepping stones towards the extended source and essay questions used in Edexcel A-Level Politics.
Question 1
Which House of Parliament has the power to determine whether the government retains the confidence required to remain in office? (1 mark)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer:Â House of Commons. (1 mark)
Question 2
Define confidence and supply. (2 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Award up to 2 marks.
Confidence and supply refers to the Commons' ability to determine whether the government retains parliamentary confidence and to grant or withhold the funding needed for government.
Question 3
Explain two ways in which the House of Commons is constitutionally more powerful than the House of Lords. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Award up to 2 marks per developed point, to a maximum of 4 marks.
Possible answers include:
Confidence:Â the government must maintain Commons confidence, while the Lords cannot determine the government's survival in the same way.
Supply:Â the Commons controls the granting of government funding.
Financial privilege:Â the Lords has restricted authority over taxation and expenditure.
Legislation:Â the Commons can ultimately prevail over Lords opposition in circumstances governed by the Parliament Acts.
Democratic legitimacy:Â the directly elected Commons possesses a stronger mandate when the Houses disagree.
Question 4
Explain two ways in which the House of Lords can influence legislation despite being constitutionally weaker than the Commons. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Award up to 3 marks per developed point, to a maximum of 6 marks.
Possible answers include:
Amendments: The Lords can propose amendments to bills. Although the Commons may later reject them, amendments can expose problems and encourage government concessions.
Delay: The Lords can delay much legislation. Delay can increase political pressure and give opponents time to challenge a proposal.
Government defeats: Because governments do not normally possess a Lords majority, peers can defeat government proposals and force reconsideration.
Scrutiny and expertise: The independence and specialist knowledge of peers can make criticism politically persuasive even when the Lords lacks the final constitutional decision.
Question 5
Analyse why frequent government defeats in the House of Lords do not necessarily mean that the Lords is more powerful than the House of Commons. (8 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
For a high-level response, students should explain that:
governments often lack a majority in the Lords;
weaker party discipline makes Lords defeats more likely;
frequency of defeat demonstrates Lords independence and influence;
however, Commons defeats can be constitutionally more significant;
the government depends on Commons confidence;
the Commons controls supply;
the Commons can ultimately reject Lords amendments and prevail over much Lords opposition.
Overall:Â frequent defeats demonstrate Lords assertiveness, not constitutional superiority.
Question 6
Consider the following situation:
A government has a secure majority in the House of Commons. A bill passes through the Commons but faces strong opposition in the Lords. Peers approve several amendments and the government suffers repeated defeats. The Commons later rejects the Lords amendments.
Explain what this situation demonstrates about the relative powers of the two Houses. (8 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
A strong answer should identify both sides of the example.
The repeated Lords defeats demonstrate that:
the government cannot necessarily control the Lords;
peers can amend legislation;
the Lords can force further debate and reconsideration;
practical influence may therefore be significant.
However, the Commons' rejection of the amendments demonstrates that:
the Commons possesses the stronger constitutional position;
Lords influence is limited when the elected House insists on its position;
formal power and practical influence are therefore different.
Judgement:Â the scenario demonstrates an influential but constitutionally subordinate House of Lords.
Question 7
Read the following source.
Supporters of Commons supremacy argue that the elected House possesses the powers which matter most. The government must maintain Commons confidence, public expenditure requires Commons support and the elected chamber can ultimately prevail when the Lords opposes legislation. These powers reflect the greater democratic legitimacy of MPs.However, formal powers do not tell the whole story. Governments frequently find the Lords more difficult to control because there is no routine government majority, party discipline is weaker and crossbenchers can influence votes. The Lords can delay legislation, propose amendments and force ministers to reconsider proposals. Its weaker constitutional position may therefore disguise considerable political influence.
Using the source, evaluate the view that the House of Commons is much more powerful than the House of Lords. (30 marks)
In your response you must:
compare and contrast the different opinions in the source;
examine and debate these views in a balanced way;
analyse and evaluate the political information presented in the source;
reach a substantiated judgement.
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
30 marks: AO1 10, AO2 10, AO3 10
Strong responses should pair competing arguments from the source.
Arguments supporting Commons superiority could include:
government depends on Commons confidence;
Commons controls supply;
Commons possesses financial superiority;
Commons can ultimately prevail over the Lords on legislation;
MPs possess direct democratic legitimacy.
Arguments questioning the extent of Commons superiority could include:
governments normally have less control over the Lords;
party discipline is weaker;
crossbenchers increase independence;
the Lords can delay legislation;
Lords amendments may force concessions;
government defeats may make ministers alter policy.
Analysis and evaluation:
A strong response should distinguish between formal power and political influence.
The Commons is significantly stronger where the final constitutional outcome is concerned. However, the Lords may exercise substantial influence over how legislation develops before that final outcome is reached.
Possible overall judgement: The Commons is clearly more powerful because it possesses powers over government survival, finance and the final legislative outcome which the Lords cannot match. Nevertheless, describing it as overwhelmingly dominant may understate the Lords' ability to force reconsideration and compromise, especially when government control of the second chamber is weak.
Question 8
Evaluate the view that the ability of the House of Lords to influence government is more important than the formal constitutional superiority of the House of Commons. (30 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
30 marks: AO1 10, AO2 10, AO3 10
Arguments that Lords influence is highly important:
government does not normally possess a Lords majority;
peers can defeat government proposals;
the Lords can delay legislation;
amendments may force compromise;
weaker party discipline and crossbenchers increase independence;
specialist scrutiny can expose problems overlooked in the Commons.
Arguments that Commons formal superiority matters more:
the government requires Commons confidence;
Commons controls supply and finance;
Lords amendments can ultimately be rejected;
Parliament Acts restrict the Lords;
Salisbury restricts opposition to manifesto legislation;
the Commons possesses greater democratic legitimacy.
Judgement: The strongest conclusion should distinguish between stages of political decision-making. Lords influence can be very important while policy is being debated and revised, but Commons power becomes decisive when disagreement cannot be resolved. Therefore, the Lords can significantly shape decisions, but the Commons remains the ultimately more powerful House.
Answers and Mark Scheme
Question 1
Answer:Â House of Commons. (1 mark)
Question 2
Award up to 2 marks.
Confidence and supply refers to the Commons' ability to determine whether the government retains parliamentary confidence and to grant or withhold the funding needed for government.
Question 3
Award up to 2 marks per developed point, to a maximum of 4 marks.
Possible answers include:
Confidence:Â the government must maintain Commons confidence, while the Lords cannot determine the government's survival in the same way.
Supply:Â the Commons controls the granting of government funding.
Financial privilege:Â the Lords has restricted authority over taxation and expenditure.
Legislation:Â the Commons can ultimately prevail over Lords opposition in circumstances governed by the Parliament Acts.
Democratic legitimacy:Â the directly elected Commons possesses a stronger mandate when the Houses disagree.
Question 4
Award up to 3 marks per developed point, to a maximum of 6 marks.
Possible answers include:
Amendments: The Lords can propose amendments to bills. Although the Commons may later reject them, amendments can expose problems and encourage government concessions.
Delay: The Lords can delay much legislation. Delay can increase political pressure and give opponents time to challenge a proposal.
Government defeats: Because governments do not normally possess a Lords majority, peers can defeat government proposals and force reconsideration.
Scrutiny and expertise: The independence and specialist knowledge of peers can make criticism politically persuasive even when the Lords lacks the final constitutional decision.
Question 5
For a high-level response, students should explain that:
governments often lack a majority in the Lords;
weaker party discipline makes Lords defeats more likely;
frequency of defeat demonstrates Lords independence and influence;
however, Commons defeats can be constitutionally more significant;
the government depends on Commons confidence;
the Commons controls supply;
the Commons can ultimately reject Lords amendments and prevail over much Lords opposition.
Overall:Â frequent defeats demonstrate Lords assertiveness, not constitutional superiority.
Question 6
A strong answer should identify both sides of the example.
The repeated Lords defeats demonstrate that:
the government cannot necessarily control the Lords;
peers can amend legislation;
the Lords can force further debate and reconsideration;
practical influence may therefore be significant.
However, the Commons' rejection of the amendments demonstrates that:
the Commons possesses the stronger constitutional position;
Lords influence is limited when the elected House insists on its position;
formal power and practical influence are therefore different.
Judgement:Â the scenario demonstrates an influential but constitutionally subordinate House of Lords.
Question 7
30 marks: AO1 10, AO2 10, AO3 10
Strong responses should pair competing arguments from the source.
Arguments supporting Commons superiority could include:
government depends on Commons confidence;
Commons controls supply;
Commons possesses financial superiority;
Commons can ultimately prevail over the Lords on legislation;
MPs possess direct democratic legitimacy.
Arguments questioning the extent of Commons superiority could include:
governments normally have less control over the Lords;
party discipline is weaker;
crossbenchers increase independence;
the Lords can delay legislation;
Lords amendments may force concessions;
government defeats may make ministers alter policy.
Analysis and evaluation:
A strong response should distinguish between formal power and political influence.
The Commons is significantly stronger where the final constitutional outcome is concerned. However, the Lords may exercise substantial influence over how legislation develops before that final outcome is reached.
Possible overall judgement: The Commons is clearly more powerful because it possesses powers over government survival, finance and the final legislative outcome which the Lords cannot match. Nevertheless, describing it as overwhelmingly dominant may understate the Lords' ability to force reconsideration and compromise, especially when government control of the second chamber is weak.
Question 8
30 marks: AO1 10, AO2 10, AO3 10
Arguments that Lords influence is highly important:
government does not normally possess a Lords majority;
peers can defeat government proposals;
the Lords can delay legislation;
amendments may force compromise;
weaker party discipline and crossbenchers increase independence;
specialist scrutiny can expose problems overlooked in the Commons.
Arguments that Commons formal superiority matters more:
the government requires Commons confidence;
Commons controls supply and finance;
Lords amendments can ultimately be rejected;
Parliament Acts restrict the Lords;
Salisbury restricts opposition to manifesto legislation;
the Commons possesses greater democratic legitimacy.
Judgement: The strongest conclusion should distinguish between stages of political decision-making. Lords influence can be very important while policy is being debated and revised, but Commons power becomes decisive when disagreement cannot be resolved. Therefore, the Lords can significantly shape decisions, but the Commons remains the ultimately more powerful House.
Comments