This chapter examines whether the House of Lords plays an effective anti-majoritarian legislative role. The chapter begins by discussing the changing nature of the relationship between the Commons and the Lords in the post-revolutionary era, focusing in particular on the emergence in the early nineteenth century of a political presumption that the Lords was becoming the inferior partner within Parliament and on the passage of the Parliament Act 1911 in which legal force was given to that political presumption. The chapter also addresses the various proposals put forward in the modern era to reform both the composition and the powers of the House of Lords, and suggests that most reform plans present a paradox. The more we ask a second chamber to perform functions complementary to those of the Commons, the more we demand of its members that they be (as individuals and as a body) ‘expert’, ‘experienced’, and ‘nonpartisan’, and so the more we reveal the crushing dominance of party politics in the lower house, and the incapacity and/or unwillingness of backbench MPs to exert a restraining influence on government activities. This suggests that the key division within the legislative process is now not Lords versus Commons, nor Labour versus Conservative, but party versus national interest. The final part of the chapter explores a more obviously ‘legal’ question; namely the implications of the Parliament Act 1911 for traditional understandings of the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Handyside v United Kingdom (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737, European Court of Human Rights. This case concerned a book which breached the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The publisher, Handyside, contended that the domestic law (the 1959 Act) breached his Article 10 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case introduced the concept of the ‘margin of appreciation’ accorded to states as regards the implementation of convention rights. The case predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Handyside v United Kingdom (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737, European Court of Human Rights. This case concerned a book which breached the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The publisher, Handyside, contended that the domestic law (the 1959 Act) breached his Article 10 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case introduced the concept of the ‘margin of appreciation’ accorded to states as regards the implementation of convention rights. The case predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Handyside v United Kingdom (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737, European Court of Human Rights. This case concerned a book which breached the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The publisher, Handyside, contended that the domestic law (the 1959 Act) breached his Article 10 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case introduced the concept of the ‘margin of appreciation’ accorded to states as regards the implementation of convention rights. The case predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
