Role of Second Chamber of the Uk Parliament

The first constitutional role that might be performed by a second chamber in the UK Parliament is a legislative role. Usually, it is non-controversial bills that are introduced at the Upper House, the House of Lords. More often, this second chamber amends and revises bills introduced from the House of Commons. Since the House of Lords has less partisanship and has more time to devote to each Bill, each Bill can be examined in greater detail. This 'second opinion' can offer a greater insight whereby they consider ideas, opinions and problems not considered in the House of Commons. As a result, the second chamber can make amendments to Bills before sending them back to the House of Commons for reconsideration. It is very unusual for the House of Lords to entirely reject a Bill. Also, there is a convention for the House of Lords to not defeat a Government Bill at its second reading if the Bill was part of the Government's election manifesto. This is known as the 'Salisbury doctrine', named after Lord Salisbury, the Conservative Leader of the Lords who suggested this idea in 1945 to allow the government to have a clear mandate.

The second role is a scrutinising role. The House of Lords scrutinises the Government's administration and policies through questions and select committees. The Lords have a daily Question Time. It is shorter than Question Times in the Commons and only up to four starred questions can be asked in one day with no more than one starred question by each Lord. The starred questions are named so since they have an asterisk beside them on the order paper. They are only meant to ask for specific information rather than being a speech or starting a debate. However, supplementary questions can be asked at that time as well 'unstarred', debatable questions that can be asked at the end of each day. Select committees can scrutinise the Government's work by investigating and reporting on matters that the House of Lords believe raised important questions on policy or principle.

Along with administrative and secretarial staff, the select committees can also include specialist advisers relevant to each investigation. Joint committees that have members from both the Commons and Lords can also scrutinise delegated legislation known as 'statutory instruments'. This allows these committees to be responsible for secondary legislation governed by the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.

The third role is a deliberative role. For several reasons, it is arguable that the level of debate within the House of Lords is higher. For example, since the Lords has more crossbenchers, it means that it is less likely for members to side with a particular view. Also, the whips do not have the same influence on life peers that know they are there for life. The whips cannot threaten the Lords with taking away their possible seat at the next election as they do with MPs. Lords are also not as driven by the prospect of promotion since they have usually already achieved distinguished positions either in the Commons or somewhere else. Another reason the level of debate is normally higher is because the second chamber is comprised of members with a wealth of knowledge from a broad spectrum of professions, experience, and expertise. For example, in 2003 the Lords held a debate to call attention to the role of parents in the 21st Century. The debate's 20 speakers included the Chairmen of the Parenting Support Forum and the Youth Justice Board, two former school governors, a consultant paediatrician, a former minister for Education, a practicing youth worker, the president of MENCAP, a former headmistress and former Archbishops of Canterbury. Debates in the House of Lords are normally more serious and relatively dispassionate compared to those in the Commons since the Lords are less interested in the theatrics of their debates and as a result can discuss them better without heckling and interruptions.

Another constitutional role for the second chamber is a legitimating role. The House of Commons is seen as having the chief legitimating role in Parliament since it is an elected body and has more power to approve Bills through the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. However, according to Rush (1994), the House of Lords also offered legitimacy since it gave formal approval to Bills which passed through it.

A fifth constitutional role is a judicial role. The UK Supreme Court began in 2005, as part of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Before this, the House of Lords had a judicial function as being the highest Court of Appeal in the UK. This function, which did not feature in the Commons, was kept apart from the rest of the proceedings in the Lords. Most peers could not be involved in this role. Particularly, when the House sat as the Court of Appeal, only the Law Lords and Lord Chancellor could participate.

The legislative role of a second chamber is most appropriate since it provides a strong '2nd opinion' to legislation proposed. The extra time and attention to detail given to legislation in the second chamber allows the country to have legislation that has been thoroughly considered and redrafted. Similarly, the scrutinising role is very important for keeping the first chamber accountable for the legislation they wish to make law. This means that any government are far less likely to suggest absurd legislation or take a more dictatorial form of running the country. The deliberative role is appropriate since the second chamber is less partisan, more qualified in different fields, more dignified and less driven by promotion thereby achieving better 'quality control'. However, the second chamber's legitimating role seems less appropriate given that many see this as the Commons' role. Since only a few second chamber members participated in a judicial role at any time, and no longer exists, it would seem that this is a less important role.