House of Commons and House of Lords | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: 2 days ago
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 60 to 75 minutes
This House of Commons and House of Lords A-Level Politics revision page covers the structure of Parliament, how members of its two Houses are selected, and the main functions performed by each chamber. You will also consider how effectively the Commons and Lords perform legislation, scrutiny and representation. Understanding these differences provides an important foundation for studying the comparative powers of Parliament's two chambers [Comparative powers of the Commons and Lords] and the wider relationship between Parliament and government.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain how members of the House of Commons are selected.
Explain how members of the House of Lords are selected and distinguish between different forms of membership.
Explain the main functions performed by the House of Commons and House of Lords.
Compare how the two Houses perform legislation, scrutiny and representation.
Analyse factors that strengthen or weaken the effectiveness of each House.
Evaluate the extent to which the Commons and Lords successfully fulfil their functions.
Revision Notes đź“š
House of Commons and House of Lords A-Level Politics revision: the two Houses
The UK Parliament is a bicameral legislature, meaning that it contains two parliamentary chambers: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The specification identifies the Commons as the primary chamber and requires students to understand both the selection of members and the extent to which the two Houses fulfil their functions.
The two Houses have deliberately different forms of membership.
House of Commons | House of Lords | |
Basic character | Directly elected chamber | Unelected second chamber |
Members | Members of Parliament (MPs) | Mainly appointed life peers, together with Lords Spiritual |
Main representative basis | Geographical constituencies | Expertise, experience, political affiliation and other interests |
Democratic legitimacy | Stronger because MPs are elected | Weaker because members are not directly elected |
Particular strength | Electoral representation and accountability | Detailed revision and specialist scrutiny |
These differences matter because the way a House is selected affects how effectively it can carry out its functions.
How members of the House of Commons are selected
Members of the House of Commons are directly elected by voters. The UK uses First-past-the-post (FPTP)Â for House of Commons elections. Under FPTP, the candidate who receives more votes than any other candidate in a constituency is elected.
You will study the operation, strengths and weaknesses of this system in more detail through First-past-the-post [First-past-the-post].
Each MP therefore has a direct link with a geographical constituency. This gives the Commons an important source of democratic legitimacy because voters can choose their representative and subsequently decide whether to re-elect them.
Why direct election matters
Direct election strengthens several Commons functions:
Representation:Â MPs represent the interests and concerns of their constituents.
Accountability:Â MPs must eventually face voters again.
Legitimacy:Â decisions of the Commons carry the authority of an elected chamber.
Government formation:Â the political composition of the Commons determines which party or parties can sustain a government.
However, election does not automatically mean that individual MPs act independently. Party loyalty and party discipline can affect the willingness of MPs to challenge their own party's government.
How members of the House of Lords are selected
The House of Lords is not directly elected. Its different method of membership is central to debates about both its strengths and its weaknesses.
Life peers
Life peers are appointed for their lifetime rather than gaining a parliamentary seat through inheritance.
Life peers may have substantial political, professional or specialist experience. This can strengthen the House's ability to examine legislation and scrutinise government.
The independent House of Lords Appointments Commission recommends individuals for appointment as non-party-political life peers and vets nominations for life peerages for propriety. Political parties can also nominate people for peerages.
This appointment system can therefore produce members with expertise that may not necessarily be found among elected MPs.
However, appointment also creates an important criticism. Members do not receive their authority directly from voters, meaning that the Lords lacks the same democratic mandate as the Commons.
Lords Spiritual
Senior Church of England bishops sit in the House as Lords Spiritual. They sit because of their ecclesiastical office rather than because they have won an election. UK Parliament distinguishes these members from the Lords Temporal, who comprise the other members of the House.
Their presence illustrates the unusual and unelected character of the second chamber.
Hereditary peers and the 2026 reform
Older examination material refers to hereditary peers, whose titles are inherited. This is important historically and for understanding debates about House of Lords reform.
However, there has been a significant recent constitutional change. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 ended the right of hereditary peers to sit in the Lords by virtue of their hereditary peerage. That right ceased at the end of the 2024 to 2026 parliamentary session on 29 April 2026. Some former hereditary members have subsequently remained or returned as life peers, but hereditary status itself no longer provides membership of the House.
⚠️ Revision point: older Edexcel papers and examiner reports may discuss hereditary peers as members of the Lords. For current study, distinguish the historical arrangement from the position following the 2026 reform.
This change is also relevant when considering whether earlier constitutional reforms should be extended through further constitutional reform [Debates on further reform].
Crossbenchers
A crossbencher is a member of the Lords who is not aligned with one of the political parties.
Crossbenchers are important because their presence can make the Lords less dominated by party politics than the Commons. Examination material has repeatedly linked crossbench independence with the Lords' ability to scrutinise government and legislation.
Importantly, crossbencher is not a separate type of peerage. It describes political affiliation. A crossbencher may, for example, be a life peer.
Comparing the selection of the two Houses
Issue | House of Commons | House of Lords |
Direct election | Yes | No |
Link with voters | Direct constituency link | No constituency mandate |
Electoral accountability | MPs must face voters | Members do not face re-election |
Specialist expertise | Depends on the MPs elected | Appointment can deliberately bring expertise |
Party influence | Strong | Present, but weaker because of crossbenchers and greater independence |
Main legitimacy | Democratic election | Experience, independence and specialist contribution |
There is therefore an important trade-off.
The Commons has stronger democratic legitimacy, while the Lords can claim advantages from greater independence and specialist knowledge.
This creates one of the central debates surrounding Parliament: whether democratic election is always the best way to create an effective legislative chamber.
The main functions of the House of Commons and House of Lords
For this topic, three broad functions are particularly useful for comparison:
Legislation
Scrutiny and accountability
Representation
A strong examination answer should compare the two Houses against the same function rather than writing one section about the Commons followed by an unrelated section about the Lords.
1. Legislation
Parliament has a central role in making law. Both Houses debate legislation and consider proposals for change.
The full stages through which legislation passes are covered in the legislative process [The legislative process].
House of Commons
The Commons debates and votes on proposed legislation. Its elected status gives it democratic authority when considering laws that will apply to the population.
The Commons can be effective because:
elected MPs can debate proposals on behalf of their constituents;
backbench MPs may pressure ministers to alter legislation;
governments may make concessions to avoid opposition from their own MPs.
However, its effectiveness can be limited when a government has a secure Commons majority. Party discipline and the whip system may allow the government to ensure that its legislation receives sufficient support.
This means that simply counting government victories does not tell you everything about parliamentary effectiveness. Governments may alter proposals in advance because they expect opposition from MPs.
House of Lords
The Lords performs an important revising function.
Its members can:
examine legislation in detail;
debate proposed changes;
identify problems in bills;
propose amendments;
encourage ministers to reconsider proposals.
The Lords can be particularly effective because many members have specialist experience, party discipline is generally weaker and members do not have constituency responsibilities competing for their time.
The lack of a routine government majority in the Lords can also make challenges to government proposals more likely.
However, its unelected character creates an important limitation. An appointed chamber may be reluctant to claim the same democratic authority as the elected Commons.
How effective are the Houses at legislation?
The answer depends on what is meant by "effective".
If effectiveness means possessing a democratic mandate to make laws, the Commons has the stronger claim.
If effectiveness means providing detailed revision and identifying defects in legislation, the Lords may have important advantages because of its expertise, independence and available time.
This distinction will become especially important when studying the relative powers of the two Houses [Comparative powers of the Commons and Lords].
2. Scrutiny and accountability
Scrutiny means examining government decisions, actions and proposals and requiring those in power to explain and defend them.
Holding the Executive to account is a major parliamentary function.
House of Commons
MPs can scrutinise government through:
questioning ministers;
debates;
parliamentary committees;
criticism from opposition MPs;
pressure from government backbenchers.
The detailed role of non-ministerial MPs is covered in backbench scrutiny [Backbenchers and parliamentary scrutiny].
The Commons has several strengths as a scrutinising chamber.
Because MPs are elected, criticism of government can carry democratic authority. Commons scrutiny also attracts substantial political and media attention.
However, scrutiny may be weakened by:
strong party loyalty;
government control over its own MPs;
a large government majority;
MPs' ambitions for promotion;
the demands of constituency work.
A government with a strong and disciplined majority may therefore dominate the Commons even though the Commons possesses substantial mechanisms for scrutiny.
House of Lords
The Lords also scrutinises government through debates, questions and committee work.
Several features can strengthen this role:
the government does not normally command the same automatic majority that it may possess in the Commons;
crossbenchers provide a group outside normal party competition;
peers may possess specialist knowledge;
members are not seeking re-election;
members do not perform the same constituency role as MPs.
These factors can allow the Lords to challenge government proposals with greater independence.
Its weakness is again democratic legitimacy. Members scrutinising an elected government have not themselves received an electoral mandate.
How effective are the Houses at scrutiny?
The Commons has the advantage of democratic accountability, but party discipline can reduce the independence of MPs.
The Lords has the advantage of greater independence and specialist expertise, but lacks electoral accountability.
Neither House can therefore be described as automatically "better". Their effectiveness depends partly on the political circumstances.
For example, the strength of a government's majority can greatly affect how effectively Commons MPs challenge the Executive.
You will examine particular scrutiny mechanisms in greater depth in select committees and ministerial questions [Select committees, opposition and ministerial questions].
3. Representation
Representation involves Parliament reflecting and expressing interests, concerns and viewpoints within society.
The two Houses perform this function in very different ways.
House of Commons
The Commons has a clear geographical representative function.
Each MP represents a constituency and can:
raise constituents' concerns;
pursue problems on their behalf;
question ministers;
participate in debates;
vote on legislation affecting the constituency and the wider country.
The Commons therefore has a strong claim to democratic representation because voters themselves choose MPs.
However, MPs may experience tension between:
what their constituents want;
what their political party wants;
their own judgement.
Representation does not therefore mean simply following constituency opinion on every issue.
House of Lords
The Lords does not provide geographical electoral representation in the same way.
Instead, examination materials emphasise its ability to provide representation through:
professional knowledge;
specialist expertise;
independent viewpoints;
attention to interests that may receive less electoral attention.
This can broaden parliamentary debate.
However, this form of representation is fundamentally different from democratic representation. The public cannot remove individual peers through an election.
The Lords may therefore represent a range of interests and expertise, but the Commons has the much stronger claim to represent voters directly.
Comparing how effectively the Houses fulfil their functions
Function | Commons strengths | Commons limitations | Lords strengths | Lords limitations |
Legislation | Elected mandate; MPs debate and vote on laws | Government majority and party discipline can restrict independent influence | More time, expertise and detailed revision | Lack of electoral mandate limits authority |
Scrutiny | Democratic legitimacy; prominent questioning of government | Party loyalty and government majorities may weaken independence | Greater independence, specialists, crossbenchers, no routine government majority | Unelected members lack direct public accountability |
Representation | MPs directly represent constituencies | Party loyalty may conflict with constituency preferences | Can represent expertise and interests outside electoral politics | No direct electoral or constituency link |
Overall assessment of effectiveness
The Commons and Lords should not simply be seen as two chambers trying to perform identical roles in identical ways.
Their contrasting memberships produce different strengths.
The House of Commons is strongest where democratic legitimacy and direct representation matter. MPs have been elected and can be removed by voters.
The House of Lords can be particularly effective where detailed scrutiny, revision and specialist expertise matter. Appointment and freedom from constituency elections can give members more time and independence.
At the same time, the weaknesses of each chamber follow partly from those same characteristics. Elections give the Commons legitimacy but encourage party competition and discipline. Appointment may increase expertise in the Lords but weakens its democratic legitimacy.
A strong overall judgement is therefore that the chambers can be complementary. The Commons provides democratic authority, while the Lords can provide additional revision and scrutiny. Whether this balance works effectively is ultimately a judgement that must be supported by comparison across specific parliamentary functions.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Life peer | A member appointed to a peerage for their lifetime rather than inheriting a parliamentary seat. | Use when explaining how appointment can add experience and expertise to the Lords. |
Hereditary peer | A person holding a peerage passed through a family. Hereditary status no longer gives a right to sit in the Lords following the 2026 reform. | Use when explaining the development and reform of Lords membership. |
Lords Spiritual | Senior Church of England bishops who sit in the House of Lords because of their ecclesiastical office. | Use when explaining the unelected composition of the Lords. |
Crossbencher | A member of the Lords who is not aligned with a political party. | Use when explaining why the Lords may be less partisan and more independent than the Commons. |
Scrutiny | The examination and questioning of government actions, decisions and proposed legislation. | Use when evaluating how effectively either House holds the Executive to account. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint:Â Define the functions you are assessing before judging effectiveness. Recent examiner feedback has stressed that students perform better when they establish what a body is supposed to do and then measure how successfully it does it.
Examiner hint:Â Compare the Houses function by function. Strong responses have compared the Commons and Lords directly in areas such as legislation, scrutiny and representation rather than producing two separate descriptive accounts.
Examiner hint:Â Keep different parliamentary mechanisms distinct. Examiners have repeatedly identified confusion between public bill committees, which examine legislation, and select committees, which principally scrutinise government departments and policy.
Examiner hint:Â Build paragraphs around competing arguments. Strong source responses pair a reason supporting the view with a directly competing reason, analyse their relative strength and then reach a substantiated mini-judgement.
Examiner hint:Â Use examples to answer the precise question rather than reproducing a prepared essay. Examiner reports repeatedly praise well-selected contemporary evidence and warn against forcing memorised material into a question that asks something different.
Examiner hint:Â A conclusion should be the logical result of the argument developed throughout the essay. It should not simply repeat earlier paragraphs. The reader should already be able to predict your overall judgement from the evaluation you have developed.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Treating hereditary peers as part of the current Lords membership
Why this is incorrect: Older Edexcel materials refer to hereditary peers because they were still present when those papers were written. The hereditary right to sit ended in 2026.
How to improve: Use older hereditary-peer material when explaining historical Lords reform, but make clear that hereditary status no longer provides a seat in the House.
Mistake: Calling crossbenchers a separate type of peerage
Why this is incorrect: "Crossbencher" describes political affiliation rather than the legal basis on which someone became a member.
How to improve: Separate two questions in your revision: "How did this person enter the Lords?" and "Are they affiliated with a political party?"
Mistake: Assuming the Commons is automatically effective because it is elected
Why this is incorrect: Election provides democratic legitimacy, but it does not guarantee effective scrutiny. Party discipline and a large government majority can make MPs less willing or able to challenge ministers.
How to improve: Whenever discussing election, explain both its advantage for legitimacy and the possible effects of party competition.
Mistake: Assuming the unelected nature of the Lords makes it automatically ineffective
Why this is incorrect: Lack of electoral legitimacy is a significant weakness, but appointment may also create expertise, independence and more time for detailed scrutiny.
How to improve: Treat appointment as an evaluative issue with both strengths and weaknesses.
Mistake: Discussing scrutiny when the question is specifically about legislation
Why this is incorrect: Examiner reports have identified students using examples about general government accountability when they had been asked specifically about shaping legislation.
How to improve: Underline the precise function named in the question and test every example against it before including it.
Mistake: Listing functions without evaluating their effectiveness
Why this is incorrect: Knowing that Parliament legislates, scrutinises and represents demonstrates knowledge, but an evaluation question also requires you to judge how successfully those functions are performed.
How to improve: For each function, use the pattern: function → evidence of effectiveness → limitation → comparative judgement.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
In the live Edexcel Paper 2 examination, UK Government is assessed through 30-mark source and essay questions. The shorter questions below are stepping-stone revision checks designed to build the knowledge and analytical skills needed for those extended responses.
Question 1
State which House of Parliament is directly elected. (1 mark)
Question 2
Explain one difference between the way members of the House of Commons and House of Lords are selected. (2 marks)
Question 3
Explain two ways in which the appointment of members may help the House of Lords perform its functions effectively. (4 marks)
Question 4
Explain two reasons why the House of Commons may be particularly effective at performing the representation function. (6 marks)
Question 5
Compare the strengths and weaknesses of the Commons and Lords in scrutinising government. (8 marks)
Question 6
Read the following source.
One view is that the appointed character of the House of Lords strengthens Parliament. Members can bring specialist knowledge to debates, crossbenchers can act independently of political parties and the government cannot automatically rely on a majority in the chamber. This may allow detailed and independent scrutiny.An alternative view is that appointment fundamentally weakens the Lords. Its members have not been chosen by voters and cannot be removed through elections. The elected Commons therefore has a stronger democratic mandate to represent the public and challenge government, although party loyalty can sometimes weaken the independence of MPs.
Using the source, evaluate the view that the different methods of selecting members make the House of Lords more effective than the House of Commons at scrutinising government. (30 marks)
In your response:
compare the competing arguments in the source;
examine both sides of the debate;
reach a substantiated judgement;
base your analysis and evaluation on the political information presented in the source.
Question 7
Evaluate the view that the House of Commons fulfils the representation function more effectively, whereas the House of Lords fulfils the scrutiny function more effectively. (30 marks)
Question 8
Evaluate the view that differences in membership make the House of Commons and House of Lords complementary rather than competing parliamentary chambers. (30 marks)
Answers and Mark Scheme
Question 1
Answer:Â House of Commons. (1 mark)
Question 2
Award up to 2 marks for one explained difference.
For example:
Commons MPs are directly elected by voters, whereas members of the Lords are not directly elected. (2 marks)
MPs receive a constituency mandate through elections, whereas life peers enter the Lords through appointment. (2 marks)
Question 3
Award 2 marks per developed reason, up to 4 marks.
Possible answers include:
Appointment can bring people with specialist expertise, strengthening detailed scrutiny of legislation.
Members do not have to seek re-election, potentially giving them greater independence.
The presence of crossbenchers can reduce party domination.
Peers do not undertake the same constituency role as MPs, allowing greater time for detailed parliamentary work.
Question 4
Award up to 3 marks per developed reason, up to 6 marks.
Possible answers include:
Direct election:
MPs are chosen by voters within geographical constituencies. This gives MPs a direct democratic mandate to speak on behalf of those constituents.
Electoral accountability:
Voters have the opportunity to remove MPs at subsequent elections, creating an incentive for MPs to consider constituents' interests.
Other well-developed answers consistent with the lesson should be rewarded.
Question 5
A strong answer should make direct comparisons.
Possible points include:
Commons strengths
directly elected;
stronger democratic legitimacy;
scrutiny receives substantial public and political attention;
MPs can question and challenge ministers.
Commons weaknesses
party discipline may discourage rebellion;
a large government majority may strengthen executive control.
Lords strengths
greater independence;
specialist experience;
crossbench membership;
absence of a routine government majority;
greater time for detailed examination.
Lords weaknesses
unelected membership;
no direct accountability to voters;
weaker democratic mandate when challenging an elected government.
For the highest marks, reach a comparative judgement rather than simply describing each House.
Question 6
30 marks: AO1 10, AO2 10, AO3 10
Strong answers should organise the source into directly competing arguments.
Arguments supporting the view might include:
specialist knowledge can improve scrutiny;
crossbenchers may increase independence;
the government cannot automatically rely on a Lords majority;
freedom from electoral pressures can permit more detailed examination.
Arguments challenging the view might include:
unelected members lack democratic legitimacy;
members cannot be removed by voters;
the elected Commons possesses a stronger mandate to hold government accountable;
however, party loyalty may weaken the practical independence of Commons MPs.
Evaluation:
The strongest judgement will distinguish between different meanings of effectiveness. The Lords may possess advantages in independence and specialist scrutiny, while the Commons has much greater democratic legitimacy. A convincing conclusion should explain which criterion is more important rather than simply stating that both sides have strengths.
Question 7
30 marks: AO1 10, AO2 10, AO3 10
A strong response should test both parts of the proposition.
Supporting the view:
Commons MPs have a direct constituency mandate.
MPs are electorally accountable.
The Lords lacks geographical electoral representation.
Lords members may have greater expertise and independence.
Crossbenchers and weaker party control can strengthen Lords scrutiny.
Lords members have more time for detailed parliamentary work.
Challenging the view:
Commons scrutiny can be powerful because it possesses democratic legitimacy.
Government backbenchers may pressure ministers and force concessions.
The Lords can represent specialist and functional interests even without elections.
Appointment may broaden the range of experience represented in Parliament.
Judgement:
A strong conclusion might argue that "representation" and "scrutiny" require different qualities. Direct election gives the Commons the clearer advantage in democratic representation, while the structure of the Lords can give it important advantages in detailed scrutiny. The judgement should nevertheless recognise that effectiveness varies with political circumstances.
Question 8
30 marks: AO1 10, AO2 10, AO3 10
Arguments that the Houses are complementary:
Commons election provides democratic legitimacy.
Lords appointment can provide expertise and independence.
Commons geographical representation can be supplemented by the Lords' specialist perspectives.
Different memberships can produce different approaches to scrutiny and legislation.
Weaknesses in one chamber may therefore be partly compensated for by strengths in the other.
Arguments challenging the view:
Different sources of legitimacy can create disagreements about which chamber should prevail.
The Lords' unelected character can undermine the authority of its challenges.
Party politics remains present in both Houses.
Appointment can itself be criticised for political patronage.
Differences between the Houses may therefore reflect unequal democratic legitimacy rather than an ideal constitutional balance.
Judgement:
The strongest answers should avoid claiming that either House is simply "better". Instead, assess whether their contrasting methods of selection allow the two chambers to make distinct contributions to legislation, scrutiny and representation, and whether those advantages outweigh concerns about the Lords' lack of direct electoral legitimacy.
Comments