Breaking the Deadlock: the House Commons vs the House of Lords

It is common knowledge that there are two Houses of Parliament which are entrusted with debating Bills before they become Acts of Parliament. There is often concern that Bills of Parliament will fail if there is a lack of consensus between the two Houses. This article explores the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and whether or not one party can in effect, block a Bill from becoming law.

The first house is the House of Commons, which consists of 650 Members of Parliament ('MPs') who are elected by the public to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. The House of Lords, in stark contrast, is the upper chamber of Parliament and is made up of unelected 'Peers' who are appointed. This can be on a political or non-political footing.

The existence of the House of Lords has been debated for decades, and has been the subject of controversy, with some people arguing that it should be abolished in favour of a second elected chamber. Most recently, the House of Lords has been subject to scrutiny: there is active debate over the abolition of hereditary peers. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, if passed, will remove all remaining hereditary peers (members who inherit their position in the House of Lords by virtue of their family) from the House of Lords. It will also prevent them from having any future involvement in parliamentary processes. It is near the end of the legislative process: the House of Commons will consider amendments proposed by the House of Lords on 4 September 2025.

In terms of the legislative process, a Bill will usually be scrutinised in one House before being sent to the other for further scrutiny. When both Houses have agreed to the terms of the Bill, this will then be taken to the Crown, who will sign the Bill (also known as 'Royal Assent') which in turn, allow it to become enforceable law. A series of important questions then arises from this: what happens if the House of Lords disagree with the House of Commons on a piece of proposed legislation? Does that mean the Bill will 'ping pong' between the two Houses? and can the House of Lords simply block a Bill from ever becoming law?

In short, the answer is no. There are two Acts of Parliament which significantly curb the power of the House of Lords: the Parliament Act 1911 ('the 1911 Act') and the Parliament Act 1949 ('the 1949 Act'). The Acts limit the role of the House of Lords in the legislative process, but only in certain circumstances where specific conditions are met, which will be discussed below. The basic rationale behind the Parliament Acts is this: whilst the House of Lords does possess the power to ask the elected House of Commons to reconsider its position, because the House of Commons is the elected chamber of Parliament, it should ultimately be able to get its way on legislation.

Historically, the House of Lords were able to veto legislation passed by the House of Commons. This became an increasingly common issue in the late 19th Century, with the People's Budget in 1909 being the triggering event for systemic change. The result was the 1911 Act, which, in practical terms, all but removed from the House of Lords' power to veto a Bill. Instead, the Lords could delay a Bill by up to two years (unless it was one which sought to extend the maximum lifespan of a Parliament). The Act also reduced the maximum lifespan of a Parliament from seven years down to five years. The 1949 Act further restricted the powers of the House of Lords: under this enactment, it can now only delay a Bill by one year.

All of the following conditions must be met in order for the power under the Parliament Acts to be activated:

• The Bill must have been rejected by the House of Lords in two successive sessions. 'Rejected' can mean any of the following situations: the Bill has not completed its passage in the House of Lord, the House Lords decline to progress the Bill, or that the House of Lords have insisted on making amendments which the House of Commons refuses to agree to.

• There must be at least one year between the second reading of the Bill in the first session, and the third reading of the Bill in the second session. Usually, this will not be an issue given how far in advance the legislative process is timetabled.

  
  

• The House of Lords must have received the Bill at least one month before the end of the two successive parliamentary sessions; and

• The Bill does not change between the two sessions (except for: where changes are needed due to the time elapsed during the process or to reflect amendments made by the House of Lords in the first session, even if they were not agreed by the House of Commons). It will be the Government's choice on whether they include the amedments made by the House of Lords or not, it is not obligatory.

If all of the above are met, then the Parliament Acts can be used. However, before the Bill can be signed by the Crown, the Speaker of the House of Commons (the person tasked with presiding over debates and acting like a referee to ensure fairness), has to certify that the relevant conditions have been met.

The Parliament Acts apply to 'Public Bills' which are the most common kind: they are the bills which, if passed, would change the law as it applies to the general population. It should also be noted that the Parliament Acts do not apply to bills which start life in the House of Lords.

Have the Parliament Acts ever been used? The answer to that is yes. Firstly, section 1 of the 1911 Act relates to money bill (one which applies to taxation and/or the use of public money). Section 1 has been applied fairly regularly given the new arrangement whereby only the House of Commons could pass legislation on those matters. Under section 2 of the 1911 Act, which relates to more general types of bill, the power has been used sparingly. Seven bills have been passed using the powers under section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911:

• Government of Ireland Act 1914;

• Welsh Church Act 1914;

• Parliament Act 1949;

• War Crimes Act 1991;

• European Parliament Elections Act 1999;

• Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000; and

• Hunting Act 2004.

The Parliament Acts therefore represent a pivotal shift in the balance of power within the legislative process and fundamentally redefine the role of the House of Lords. Whilst the Acts were originally conceived as mechanisms to resolve the issue of legislative deadlock, they have since become vital in ensuring the primacy of the elected House of Commons and serve as a constitutional safeguard against obstruction by an unelected chamber. In theory, it could be argued that this raises the question over the role of the House of Lords: if they can be circumvented by the House of Commons, is there much point in having a second chamber? Whilst that point of contention is likely to rumble on for the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that a second, elected chamber will be created any time soon. It is also equally unlikely that there will be a scenario whereby the second chamber will be removed altogether; it serves a crucial role in ensuring that checks and balances are undertaken in the constitutional realm.