essay on house of lords

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

British Parliament

By: History.com Editors

Updated: January 20, 2023 | Original: August 10, 2017

Parliament is the legislative body of the United Kingdom and is the primary law-making institution in Great Britain’s constitutional monarchy. The history of the legislative body—which meets in the Palace of Westminster in London—shows how it evolved almost organically, partly in response to the needs of the country’s reigning monarch. Parliament traces its roots back to the earliest meetings of English barons and commoners in the 8th century.

Parliament’s Humble Beginnings

The present-day Parliament is a bicameral (“two chambers”) legislature with a House of Lords and a House of Commons . These two houses, however, weren’t always joined, and had their earliest beginnings in the Anglo-Saxon council governments of the 8th century.

The Witan was a small council of clergymen, land-owning barons and other advisors chosen by the king to discuss matters of state, taxation and other political affairs. As it expanded to include more advisors, the Witan evolved into the magnum concilium or Great Council.

On a local level, “moots” were meetings of local bishops, lords, sheriffs and, importantly, commoners who were representatives of their counties or “shires.”

These institutions functioned—with varying degrees of success—as law-making bodies and law enforcement agencies throughout England during the Middle Ages . The two bodies didn’t regularly convene, but they paved the way to the bicameral legislature that exists today.

Magna Carta

The first English Parliament was convened in 1215, with the creation and signing of the Magna Carta , which established the rights of barons (wealthy landowners) to serve as consultants to the king on governmental matters in his Great Council.

As in the early Witans, these barons were not elected, but rather selected and appointed by the king. The Great Council was first referred to as “Parliament” in 1236.

By 1254, the sheriffs of the various counties in England were instructed to send elected representatives of their districts (knowns as “knights of the shire”) to consult with the king on issues related to taxation. Four years later, at the English university town of Oxford, the noblemen who served in Parliament at the time drafted the “Provisions of Oxford,” which called for regular meetings of the legislative body, composed of representatives from each of the counties.

In 1295, Parliament evolved to include nobles and bishops as well as two representatives from each of the counties and towns in England and, since 1282, Wales. This became the model for the composition of all future Parliaments.

Richard II Deposed

Over the course of the next century, the membership of Parliament was divided into the two houses it features today, with the noblemen and bishops encompassing the House of Lords and the knights of the shire and local representatives (known as “burgesses”) making up the House of Commons.

During this time, too, Parliament began to take on more authority within the English government. In 1362, for example, it passed a statute decreeing that Parliament must approve all taxation.

Fourteen years later, the House of Commons tried and impeached a number of the king’s advisors. And, in 1399, after years of internal struggle for power between the monarchy and Parliament, the legislative body voted to depose King Richard II, enabling Henry IV to assume the throne.

Parliament’s Power Expands

During Henry IV’s time on the throne, the role of Parliament expanded beyond the determination of taxation policy to include the “redress of grievances,” which essentially enabled English citizens to petition the body to address complaints in their local towns and counties. By this time, citizens were given the power to vote to elect their representatives—the burgesses—to the House of Commons.

In 1414, Henry IV’s son, Henry V , assumed the throne and became the first monarch to acknowledge that the approval and consultation of both houses of Parliament was required to make new laws. Still, all was not perfect in England’s fledgling democracy.

More than 100 years later, in 1523, philosopher and writer Sir Thomas More , a Member of Parliament (M.P. for short), was the first to raise the issue of “ freedom of speech ” for lawmakers in both houses during deliberations. A half-century hence, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in 1576, Peter Wentworth, M.P., made an impassioned speech arguing for the same right; he was sentenced to imprisonment in the Tower of London .

Wentworth, a Puritan , later clashed with Elizabeth I over issues related to freedom of religion during his time as an M.P., and he was jailed for these acts as well. It was this persecution that led the Puritans to leave England for the New World in the 1600s, helping to settle the 13 colonies that eventually became the United States.

English Civil War

For much of the 17th century, the United Kingdom experienced a great deal of change and political turmoil. Arguably, the one constant was Parliament.

From 1603 to 1660, the country was mired in a drawn-out civil war and, for a time, military leader Oliver Cromwell assumed power under the title Lord Protector. The ruling monarch at the time, Charles I , was executed in 1649.

Cromwell is best known for conquering Scotland (1649) and Ireland (1651) and bringing them, unwillingly, under the dominion of the United Kingdom. Still, those two nations had their own Parliaments, made up of Cromwell supporters.

Parliament continued to retain some power during this period of change. However, M.P.s who were thought to be loyal to Charles I were excluded from the legislature in 1648, creating the so-called “Rump Parliament.”

The Monarchy Abolished

In 1649, the House of Commons took the unprecedented step of abolishing the monarchy and declaring England a commonwealth.

Four years later, though, Cromwell disbanded the Rump Parliament and created the Nominated Assembly, a de facto legislature. Cromwell died in 1658 and was replaced by his son Richard. The son was deposed a year later, and Britain’s government effectively collapsed.

Charles I’s son, Charles II , was restored to the throne in 1660, reaffirming the monarchy’s place in British history.

New Parliamentary elections were held. And the M.P.s elected effectively held their seats for the next 18 years, during which no general election was called.

The Stuart Kings

The so-called “Stuart Kings”—Charles II and his brother James II, who succeeded him in 1685—maintained a similar relationship with the legislature as their father had in the 1640s. However, religion was a major issue dividing English government and society.

When Parliament passed the “Test Act,” which prevented Catholics from holding elected office, the legislature was at odds with King James II, himself a Catholic. After years of political in-fighting during the Glorious Revolution , Parliament deposed James II in 1689 and his eldest daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange ascended to the throne.

During their brief rule, Parliament was once again elevated to having law-making powers. In fact, when Mary and William died (in 1694 and in 1702, respectively), the legislature established new protocols for succession, and named George of Hanover king.

Parliament in Recent History

Over course of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, Parliament and its powers evolved—just as the United Kingdom itself did.

Scotland formally became a part of the United Kingdom in 1707, and thus sent representatives to the Parliament at Westminster . By the late 1700s, Ireland was also part of the United Kingdom (the six counties in the north of the island—known collectively as Ulster—remain part of the U.K. today), and land-owners there elected their own representatives to both houses of Parliament.

Through a series of legislative acts, known as the “Reform Acts,” a number of changes were made to the composition and legislative process in Parliament. The Reform Act of 1918 gave women the right to vote, and the first woman was elected to the body that same year.

However, Countess Constance Markievicz of Ireland was a member of Sinn Fein, the political party seeking independence for the island nation, and thus refused to serve.

Meanwhile, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 established greater powers for the House of Commons, which has 650 elected members, compared to the House of Lords, which has 90 members appointed via peerage (a system of titles for noblemen).

House of Lords

Today, the two houses of Parliament—the House of Lords and the House of Commons—meet in the Palace of Westminster in London, and are the only body in the United Kingdom’s constitutional monarchy government with the authority to create legislation and make laws.

The current monarch, King Charles III , still serves a ceremonial role as head of state, and the country’s executive branch is headed by the Prime Minister.

While the House of Lords can debate all bills that don’t deal directly with financial matters for the country, it is the House of Commons that holds the ultimate sway when it comes to whether legislation ultimately becomes law.

However, the House of Lords does play a role in government accountability, through its questioning of cabinet ministers and the formation of special committees to address important matters of state. Its members are now mostly appointees, not peers who inherit their seats in the House of Lords.

House of Commons

Today, all legislation must be approved by the House of Commons in order for it to become law. The House of Commons also controls taxation and the government’s purse strings. 

The public in the United Kingdom elects each of the 650 members of the House of Commons. And in a system somewhat different from that of the United States, government ministers (including the Prime Minister) must regularly answer questions in the House of Commons.

The Birth of English Parliament. Parliament.uk . A brief history of the UK Parliament. BBC News . The Civil War. HistoryofParliament.org . Stuarts. HistoryofParliament.org . Reform Era. HistoryofParliament.org . Legislative Procedure in the House of Commons. University of Leeds . Timeline: Constitutional crises in English and British history. Reuters .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.

The powers of the Lords and Commons compared

House of Commons Reform

House of Lords Reform  

The relative powers of the two chambers reflect their different functions (such as the Commons’ role in confidence and supply) and legitimacy . The Commons has primacy because it has the democratic legitimacy

Which the lords lacks. however, it is helpful to consider two aspects of legitimacy:, ■ input legitimacy concerns the composition of an institution and its responsiveness to citizens’ concerns as a result of participation by, and representation of, the people., ■ output legitimacy concerns the quality and effectiveness of an institution’s performance and outcomes for the people., the commons has input legitimacy because of its composition (it is directly elected and accountable to voters), whereas the lords has output legitimacy because of what it delivers (its scrutiny and revision produce better quality legislation)., the exclusive powers of the house of commons.

Most of the powers and functions of Parliament are shared by the two houses. There is one important area, however, where the Commons has exclusive authority — to give consent to taxation and public expenditure. Since the Commons represents the taxpayer, there is a tradition that although the Lords debates money bills, it cannot interfere with them. For this reason the Chancellor of the Exchequer is obliged to sit in the Commons, where the annual budget is always presented.

Another area where the Commons can exercise power is the situation known as confidence and supply. This can occur in the event of a minority government, where the governing party does not join a formal coalition, but relies on a limited agreement with another party (or parties) to keep itself in office. This means that the supporting party will provide backing on a vote of no confidence, and will vote through the government's budget (the 'supply' part of the arrangement). In return the smaller party will receive certain concessions. It is an agreement that is more flexible (and thus less stable) than a full coalition. This happened in 1977-78, when James Callaghan's minority Labour government concluded the lib–Lab Pact' with the smaller Liberal Party. There was talk of the SNP supporting a minority Labour government on these terms, had the 2015 election resulted in a hung Parliament. It happened again in 2017 when Theresa May's government lost it majority and agreed a confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP.

The main powers of the House of Lords

The Lords is definitely less powerful than the Commons, as suggested by one of its informal alternative names, the 'second chamber'. Since the early 20th century, when the UK started to become more democratic, its powers have been limited by both law and convention. It is widely accepted that this is appropriate, since it lacks the democratic legitimacy of an elected chamber.

The most important legal restraints on the power of the Lords are provided by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. The first of these came about when the Lords broke with the convention, established since the late 17th century, that they should not interfere with matters of taxation. Aristocratic outrage at new taxes on land and wealth, proposed in the Liberal government's `People's budget' of 1909, led the Lords to break with this tradition. By rejecting the budget they brought about a prolonged constitutional crisis, which was resolved by the passing of the Parliament Act two years later. This set out in law that:

·    the Lords had no right to delay money bills

·    its power to veto non-financial bills was to be replaced by a power of delay lasting two parliamentary sessions (equivalent to 2 years).

Clement Attlee's Labour government, faced with opposition from the Lords to its iron and steel nationalisation bill, used the 1911 Act to push through a modification, halving the length of time that the upper house could use its delaying power. This was embodied in the 1949 Parliament Act.

The power of the Lords is also constrained by the 1945 Salisbury convention , a convention agreed shortly after the election of the Attlee government. Named after the Conservative opposition leader in the upper house, Lord Salisbury, the convention stated that the Lords would not oppose a bill that gave effect to a commitment contained in the manifesto of the winning party at a general election. The convention was a response to the election of Britain's first majority Labour government, which was committed to a radical reforming programme.

The Lords, then, has the following distinctive powers:

·    It acts mainly as a revising chamber, proposing amendments to government legislation, which it is up to the government to decide whether to accept or reject.

·    It can delay non-financial legislation for 1 year.

·    The only scenario in which the Lords retains its veto is an extremely unlikely one: if a government were to attempt to prolong the life of Parliament beyond its legal maximum term of 5 years, the Lords is legally empowered to force it to hold a general election.

Debates about the relative powers of the two houses

Although the formal powers of the Lords are quite restricted, as with so much else in British politics, what the upper house can actually do depends to a large extent on the particular circumstances of the time. In recent years some commentators have argued that the Lords is becoming more assertive in its relationship with the elected chamber.

In what ways is the Lords becoming more important?

Impact of the Lords  

The removal of most hereditary peers from the Lords in 1999 meant that the upper house was now dominated by life peers, who had mostly been appointed for service in different walks of life. This increased the Lords' sense of legitimacy. Life peers were also more likely to play a regular part in the work of the House, whereas many hereditary peers rarely appeared at Westminster. As a result the reformed House was more inclined to challenge the government.

Another consequence of the departure of most hereditary peers was that the traditional dominance of the House by the Conservative Party came to an end. No party now has overall control of the Lords and so careful management of the House has become more important for governments. Liberal Democrat peers demonstrated growing independence during the period of the New Labour government. For example, after the 2005 general election, they opposed Tony Blair's proposals for identity cards, even though this policy had been announced by the Labour Party in advance. They argued that the Salisbury convention no longer applied because the government had been re-elected on a very low share of the popular vote (only 35.2 per cent). The formation of the coalition government in 2010 cast further doubt on whether the Salisbury convention still applied. This was because the government programme was based on a coalition agreement — between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders — that had never been put to the voters.

Cross-bench peers also began to play a more important role in holding the government to account. As neutral figures, they are more likely to assess a bill on its merits and to decide accordingly whether to support or oppose the government. For example the cross-bench peer Lord Owen, a former doctor, played a leading role in opposing the coalition government's controversial Health and Social Care Bill. The measure was passed in March 2012 after the government accepted all the amendments proposed in the Lords.

How does the Commons maintain its supremacy?

Although the Lords is clearly more assertive, the Commons remains the dominant house. The two houses are not always in conflict with each other — in fact, many amendments in the Lords are sponsored by the government itself, on occasions when it belatedly notices flaws in its own legislation. But when clashes occur, the government can usually make use of its majority in the Commons to overturn critical Lords amendments if it chooses to do so. In February 2012, for example, the coalition government rejected seven amendments to its Welfare Reform and Work Bill, arguing that only the Commons was entitled to take decisions with large financial implications.

A bill can go back and forth between the two houses in a process known as 'parliamentary ping pong'. An extreme example of this was the debate between the two houses on the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which introduced control orders. This entailed a marathon sitting of 30 hours. The Lords wanted the bill to include a 'sunset clause' — in other words it would automatically expire after a year unless further legislation was passed to renew it. In the end it is up to the government to decide whether to accept or reject any changes proposed by the Lords. In the case of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, the Lords backed down following a compromise: the government promised a review a year later.

If the upper house maintains its opposition to the Commons, as a last resort the government can use the Parliament Act to force a bill through. This is rare, but it was used three times by the Blair government:

· changing the voting system for European Parliament elections (1999) 

· equalising the age of consent for gay and heterosexual people (2000) 

· banning hunting with dogs (2004). 

In practice, the Lords will usually drop its opposition after making its point, recognising that it lacks the democratic legitimacy needed to push its case further. The following case study illustrates the willingness of the Lords to take a stand on an issue, but also the self-restraint that usually prevails in clashes between the two houses.

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Politics news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Politics Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

• Study Notes

House of Lords

Last updated 22 Mar 2021

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

The House of Lords is the upper house of Parliament (the Commons is the lower house) in the UK’s bicameral system. Parliament is the UK’s legislature – the branch of government responsible for making law. Members of the Lords are often referred to as peers.

At the time of writing, the Lords contains nearly 850 peers, 783 of whom are able to vote (because some peers are retired, some on leave of absence, and some can’t vote as they are serving judges).

Up until 1999, the Lords was a largely hereditary chamber, with peers inheriting their titles. The 1997 Labour government pledged to remove hereditary peers but to ease the legislation’s passage the Lords was instead allowed to elect 92 peers from amongst the hereditaries. So 11% of peers are hereditary.

86% of peers are ‘Life peers’, who hold their titles for their own lifetimes, but can’t pass it on to their offspring. The Prime Minister has the power of patronage, in that he can fill a position with friends and allies, although an Independent Appointments Commission scrutinises these nominees for propriety, and can also recommend new ‘crossbench peers’, who are generally appointed for their expertise and have no party affiliation.

The remaining 3% of peers include 24 bishops and 2 archbishops, who sit in the Lords as the Church of England is the UK’s established (official) church. These peers only sit whilst they gold ecclesiastical office.

The House of Lords have a variety of functions. The first is that they scrutinise legislation. They can introduce, amend, delay and veto bills (proposed laws). The Lords can introduce a bill as long as it isn’t a money bill or party political. The Lords can also amend a bill, perhaps to remove loopholes or confusing wording although sometimes if they consider legislation unwise). If the Lords is particularly unhappy with a bill it can delay its passage by amending it again and again. This they did with the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Bill and the 2012 Welfare Reform Bill. They can veto a bill completely with the aim of extending the lifetime of the Commons, which has only happened during wartime in the last century.

It should be noted that the Lords’ ability to amend and delay legislation is subject to the ‘Salisbury Convention’ – which is that the Lords will not oppose a bill on the second or third reading if the proposal had been included in an election manifesto. The Commons can also claim financial privilege if there are money issues involved. Furthermore, the 1949 Government Act can be invoked which means the bill becomes law within one year whatever happens.

The House of Lords also should be holding the Government to account, debating issues of public concern and asking questions of ministers. It can also do this via their own committee system. The Commons cannot remove a senior judge without the assent of both houses so the Lords has a role in this. Finally, the House of Lords can provide Government Ministers, as minsters need to be Members of Parliament, but not necessarily from the House of Commons.

• House of Lords
• Lords reform

You might also like

Teaching Resources from the Parliament Education Team

11th September 2015

John McDonnell's Little Red Book - political naivety?

26th November 2015

Parliament's lobbies

22nd February 2016

Should we temporarily move Parliament to Birmingham?

9th September 2016

The Fixed Term Parliament Act - Has it outlived its purpose?

17th December 2018

A good example of how Parliament checks the government

25th January 2021

Electoral systems

1st August 2021

Anti-monarchy protests and the debate over free speech

14th September 2022

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Social Sciences

© 2024 Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC . All rights reserved. ISSN: 2153-5760.

Disclaimer: content on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice. Moreover, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Inquiries Journal or Student Pulse, its owners, staff, contributors, or affiliates.

Home | Current Issue | Blog | Archives | About The Journal | Submissions Terms of Use :: Privacy Policy :: Contact

Need an Account?

Forgot password? Reset your password »

A website to support students and teachers of A-Level Politics

A Brief History of House of Lords Reform

The House of Lords is one of the oldest institutions in the world. Its origins lay in the early 11th century, when King’s of England consulted the Witan, a national council of nobles and bishops, that advised the King. Under the Normans the Magnum Concilium (Great Council) was formed which saw nobles gather to advise the King. This grew into the Parliament which was first convened in 1215 following the signing of Magna Carta by King John. This Parliament split into the House of Lords (occupied by the nobility) and the House of Commons (occupied by the commoners).

How did the House of Lords develop before the 20th Century?

By the 14th century the Lords had become a distinct body within Parliament, where the House of Lords was the seat of Archbishops and Bishops (Lords Spiritual) and Dukes, Earls and others with an hereditary title. Meanwhile, the House of Commons was the seat of those without any spiritual or noble title and was occupied by the gentry.

Between the 14th and 20th centuries there was relatively little by the way of structural reform to the House of Lords. However, two significant changes did take place as regards to its membership:

Bishopric of Manchester Act (1847) : This Act of Parliament limited the number of Bishops who could take a seat in the House of Lords to just 26. It remains at this number to this day. The Archbishops of Canterbury, York, Durham, London and Winchester always sit in the Lords. The remaining 21 take their seats is granted to the most senior Diocesan Bishop without a seat.

The Appellate Jurisdiction Act (1876) : This Act created the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, which until 2009 remained the supreme court of the United Kingdom. It also allowed the Law Lords (the judges who would sit on the Appellate Committee) to take seats in the House of Lords for life – in essence making them the first Life Peers.

More changes happened to the House of Lords by the way of developing conventions that limited its power and assured the primacy of the elected House of Commons.

What conventions emerged by 1900 that asserted the dominance of the House of Commons over the House of Lords?

Financial Privilege – The supremacy of the House of Commons over financial matters has a long history. It was in 1407 that Henry IV formally established the right of the House of Commons to be initiate the granting of all taxation. During the 17th century, this prerogative of the House of Commons over taxation was a significant contributory factor in the outbreak of the Civil War between Charles I and Parliament. Following the Civil War, the House of Commons passed resolutions that said that the House of Lords should not amend money bills (those pertaining to taxation and spending). This remained the basis for Commons financial privilege in 1900.

Prime Minister to govern from the Commons – By the early 20th century it had become an accepted convention that the Prime Minister should govern from the House of Commons. Whilst in the 19th century a number of PM’s have governed from the Lords, the fact that they could not be directly scrutinised by the elected representatives impacted their perceived legitimacy. The last Prime Minister to govern from the Lords was the Marquess of Salisbury in 1902.

However, despite these significant conventions, it was during the 20th century that the House of Lords has been shaped into that which we recognise today.

What were the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949?

In 1906 a Liberal Government was elected in the House of Commons with a landslide victory which left them with a majority in the House of Commons of 132 seats. They envisaged significant social changes, including the provision of welfare through means like old age pensions and sick pay for workers.

The House of Lords, which at this point was made up of Hereditary Peers, 26 Lords Spiritual and the Law Lords were hugely opposed to these changes. This was because these new policies would be paid for by new taxes on the rich – most notably a land-tax – which would hurt the land-owning hereditary peers financially.

In 1909 Lloyd-George announced his most radical budget. He called it a ‘war budget” that would wage war against “poverty and squalidness”. Despite the convention and despite the urging of King Edward VII, the House of Lords blocked the People’s Budget – saying they would not pass it without clear mandate through a new General Election. In January 1910 the Liberals won another General Election, although without a majority. In April 1910 the House of Lords passed the People’s Budget and, under the threat of being flooded with 400 Liberal Lords, the Parliament Act of 1911.

The Parliament Act (1911) limited the power of the House of Lords to delay money bills to just one month. However, more significantly, it removed the ability of the Lords to veto bills entirely. Under the Act, if the same bill passes the House of Commons for three parliamentary sessions the Commons could miss the Lords and have it sent for Royal Assent. This meant that the House of Lords could only delay bills for a maximum of two years. The Parliament Act of 1911 was invoked three times:

• Government of Ireland Act (1914): The House of Lords blocked an Act that would have created Home Rule in Ireland. The Commons used the Parliament Act to push this through. However, ultimately, the implementation of Home Rule was halted by the First World War.
• Welsh Church Act (1914): An Act that saw the disestablishment of the Church in Wales from the Church of England. This was fiercely opposed by the traditionalist Conservative Party, however, it was forced through.
• Parliament Act (1949): The Act that reduced the power of the House of Lords to delay bills from two years to a single year. Predictably, the House of Lords were concerned about this reduction of its power, but it was seen as necessary by Clement Attlee’s Labour Government that saw its socialist agenda frustrated by the conservative House of Lords.

The Parliament Act (1949) reduced this to two parliamentary sessions, meaning the House of Lords could only delay a bill for a single year:

• War Crimes Act (1991): A bill allowed British Courts to try Second World War criminals, regardless of whether they had been resident in, or citizens of, the UK at the time. It was blocked by the House of Lords on the basis that it infringed a fundamental aspect of the Rule of Law – that someone should not be retrospectively prosecuted for something that was not a criminal offence at the time. The Lords rejected the bill, but the House of Commons pushed it through.
• European Parliamentary Elections Act (1999): This reform saw the voting system for the European Parliamentary Elections switched from First Past the Post to the D’Hondt Proportional System. This was opposed by the conservative House of Lords, notably because it would hurt Conservative chances of winning these elections. Irregardless, the House of Commons pushed it through.
• Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act (2000): This bill equalised the age of consent between homosexual and heterosexual couples. The socially conservative House of Lords opposed the bill, but the New Labour dominated House of Commons was determined to push it through.
• Hunting Act (2004): This controversial bill banned the hunting of all mammals using dogs. The aim of the bill was to suppress the pastime of fox-hunting, which many people found incredibly cruel. The conservative House of Lords opposed the move, but it was forced through anyway.

Why did the Salisbury Convention emerge?

In July 1945 Clement Attlee’s Labour Government won the second largest majority of the twentieth century with 146 seats. However, despite such a clear mandate from the electorate, he struggled to get his progressive agenda passed. At the time, only 16 of 761 members of the House of Lords were Labour peers. It was clearly a danger that the unelected House of Lords could thwart Labour’s socialist agenda, for which there was a clear electorate mandate. As such, Lord Salisbury and Lord Addison, the Conservative and Labour leaders in the Lords, agreed that any bills that had formed part of the Government’s manifesto would not not be rejected at Second or Third Reading. This helped to ensure the legislative dominance of the elected House of Commons.

How did the Life Peerages Act (1958) change the composition of the House of Lords?

Until 1958 all members of the House of Lords were either hereditary peers, appellate judges or Bishops of the Church of England. The Life Peerages Act was an attempt to modernise the House of Lords and enable a greater range of experts to be appointed to sit in the chamber. It was done by allowing the creation of Life Peers, people who would take the title of Lord, but not pass it on in the event of their death.

The Life Peerages Act did not dramatically reduce the conservative bias in the House of Lords, however, it undoubtedly helped to professionalise the Lords and continues to allow expert candidates to be appointed. Additionally, before the Life Peerages Act, women could not sit in the House of Lords, even if they had inherited a title. Today, there is a healthy number of female peers, although, there is room for further balance.

How significant was the House of Lords Act (1999)?

One of Tony Blair’s key aims was that of constitutional modernisation. New Labour’s landslide majority of 179 seats in 1997 gave them not only the mandate, but the parliamentary arithmetic, to made sweeping changes.

Tony Blair planned a three stage reform of the House of Lords that would change it more than any other reform previously made to the institution:

Stage 1 – Remove Hereditary Peers

Stage 2 – Create a Partially Elected Chamber

Stage 3 – Create a Fully Elected Chamber

As it transpired, Blair did not even achieve all of Stage 1 of his planned reforms. The House of Lords Act (1999) only saw all but 92 hereditary peers removed from the House of Lords. This removed the historic in-built Conservative advantage. This provided Blair not only with a claim to have modernised the Lords, but also with a political dividend:

The remaining 92 hereditary peers were only meant to remain temporarily. However, they still remain so today, being chosen and replaced via a by-election in which other hereditary peers vote for this most fit to take their seat in their chamber. This creates one of the great ironies of British politics – the only people elected to the House of Lords are 92 hereditary peers!

What did the Wakenham Report recommend?

In 1999 a Royal Commission was established to consider the issue of Lords Reform. Subsequently the Wakenham Report was published. This was 217 pages long and made a number of recommendations:

• The Membership of the House of Lords should drop to around 550.
• The majority of the House should be appointed by an Independent Appointments Commission.
• A portion of the House should be elected to the chamber.
• The 92 remaining hereditary peers should be removed.

The Independent Appointments Commission was established in 2000 has oversaw the investiture of a number of so-called ‘people’s peers’. However, its role in scrutinising party appointments has been more controversial. A number of its recommendations have been ignored by the Government. For example, the Appointments Commission recommended that neither Peter Cruddas or Lord Lebedev should be awarded peerages due to propriety and security concerns, however both judgements were overruled by the Government.

In his 2001 General Election manifesto Tony Blair promised to complete Stage 1 of his reforms and remove the remaining hereditary peers. However, 9/11 and the War on Terror intervened and dragged attention away from the issue of Lords Reform.

What did the Constitutional Reform Act (2005) do to the House of Lords?

The 21st Century has not seen anywhere near as much significant reform as that of the 20th. However, one significant change that has taken place is the Constitutional Reform Act (2005), which was the last major constitutional reform enacted under New Labour.

The Constitutional Reform Act did three key things, two of which impacted directly on the operation of the House of Lords:

• Disbanding the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the creation of the UK Supreme Court.

Until 2009 the highest court in the UK was the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. This was presided over by 12 Law Lords, each of whom could also sit and vote in the House of Lords. It was clear that this fusion of powers was unacceptable in the 21st century and the Act instead created a UK Supreme Court, removing the judicial functions of the House of Lords.

2 . Reducing the power of the Lord Chancellor and creating the position of Speaker of the House of Lords.

Prior to the Act, the Lord Chancellor held a position in all three branches of Government:

Legislature: They acted as Speaker of the House of Lords.

Executive: They were appointed to sit as a Member of the Cabinet.

Judiciary: They were Head of the Judiciary and made the final decision on the appointment of Senior Judges.

The Labour Government clearly felt this ‘fusion of powers’ placed too much influence in the hands of what would be an unelected member of the House of Lords. As such, they reformed the role by:

• Making the Lord Chief Justice Head of Judiciary instead of Lord Chancellor.
• Creating a position of Speaker of the House of Lords who, similarly to the House of Commons, would be elected by House members.

Although the Lord Chancellor remains in the Cabinet (normally also acting as Secretary of State for Justice), they retain only ceremonial roles in the House of Lords.

How has the Lords been reformed since 2010?

The Coalition Agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats laid out a proposal for a wholly or partly elected House of Lords. A draft bill was published called the House of Lords Reform Bill that called for:

• A 300 Member Chamber.
• A Hybrid of 80% elected and 20% appointed Lords.
• The retaining of a number of seats for Church of England Bishops.

However, when this bill made it to the House of Commons, it was quickly abandoned. It was clear that Conservative backbenchers were going to make its passage difficult.

However, despite the failure of its showpiece bill, a number of piecemeal reforms were made under the Coalition Government:

House of Lords Reform Act (2014) – This bill allowed for the exclusion of peers for any peer sentence to more than one year in prison and for any peer who fails to attend the Lords for an entire parliamentary session. It also allowed for peers to resign from the House.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act (2015) – This bill allows for peers to be expelled from the House for breaching the House of Lords code of conduct.

Following the 2015 General Election no further reform of the House of Lords took place, with the focus on politicians instead turning to issues like Brexit, However, the Burns Report made some suggestions about future reform such as:

• A reduction of the size of the House to 600.
• Members be appointed for terms of 15 years.
• A guarantee of at least 20% of peers being crossbenchers or independent peers.
• Party political peers being appointed according to the last General Election results.

What is the future for Lords Reform?

It is plainly clear that House of Lords Reform is thoroughly incomplete. Although it has changed dramatically since 1997, the reforms have been piecemeal, lacking a long-term strategy or vision. Further to this, the political will for reform has quickly dissipated when there were other political considerations of importance to deal with. It is clear that the House of Lords need to change, but how will be the focus of a different article.

Article Summary

Until 1900 there was relatively little structural reform to the House of Lords. However, the 20th century saw the powers of the Lords curtailed through the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury Convention and saw its make-up dramatically altered by the Life Peerages Act (1958) and the House of Lords Act (1999). However, these reforms have been piecemeal and more extensive reform of the House of Lords is clearly required.

Appellate Committee of the House of Lords – The court that functioned within the House of Lords and was the supreme court of the United Kingdom from 1876 to 2009.

Law Lords – The judges who made up the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.

Financial Privilege –

Parliament Act (1911) – A significant statute law that removed the power of the House of Lords to block a bill and instead only allowed it delay a bill for two years. It also stipulated that a General Election had to be held every five years.

Parliament Act (1949) – An Act that reduced the delaying powers of the House of Lords to one year.

Salisbury Convention – A convention that prevents the House of Lords from voting against bills that are in the government’s manifesto.

Life Peerages Act (1958) – An Act that allowed people to be appointed to the House of Lords for life. This allowed females to sit in the House of Lords for the first time.

House of Lords Act (1999) – A reform bill that saw the removal of the rights of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords in all but 92 cases.

Wakenham Report – A report by a Royal Commission set-up by the Labour Government of 2000. It recommended a range of reforms to the House of Lords, few of which were implemented.

House of Lords Appointments Commission – An independent commission that appoints crossbench peers to the House of Lords and also vets party nominations for the chamber.

Constitutional Reform Act (2005) – A statute law that removed the judicial functions of the House of Lords.

House of Lords Reform Act (2014) – An Act that allowed for members of the House of Lords to resign from the Lords and also allowed for the removal of peers who fail to attend the Lords.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension Act) (2015) – An Act that allowed for the expulsion of peers who have breached the House of Lords Code of Conduct.

Specification Links: Edexcel: Paper 2 – 2.4 (Parliament) AQA: Paper 1 – 3.1.1.2 (The structure and role of Parliament) WJEC: Paper 1 – 1.2.2 (How Parliament works in the UK)

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply, politics online – election newsletter.

What is the history of the Liberal Democrats and where do they stand today?

How effectively are Human Rights and Civil Liberties protected in the UK?

Common Law – Why is it fundamental to the constitution?

Discover more from politics teaching.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Essay Plan; Assess the arguments for and against reforming the House of Lords

3rd august 2017.

Assess the arguments for and against reforming the House of Lords.

Introduction:.

The House of Lords can be viewed as a ‘revising chamber’. Over half the time in the Lords is devoted to examining in detail legislation sent to it by the Commons. In this way it serves as a useful check on the government by making them think again Powers of the upper chamber are defined by the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts. In relation to legislation it can veto bills for up to a year, but on the third occasion the elected Commons can force it onto the statute books against the Lords’ will. Currently in the UK most members/peers in the HOL are appointed by the IAC and sit in the HOL for life while 92 hereditary peers still exist with 29 archbishops, many believe this system of appointment is undemocratic as no other modern democracy apart Canada have a system where legislative powers is passed on as a birth right. This essay will argue that although the HOL is undemocratic due to its unelected nature, it’s benefits outweighs the drawback it has.

PARAGRAPH 1:

Paragraph 2:, paragraph 3:, conclusion:.

In conclusion, If there was ever a time to reform the Lords it would be now: the current chamber sits in limbo as a half-way house after Labour’s last attempt at reform in 1999; as a result of the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act the office of Lord Chancellor has been has been stripped of its legal and legislative functions, and the Law Lords are moving to a new home at Middlesex Guildhall. Introducing elections would be the final step in the process of tidying up some of the anomalies of the old House.

Hi when was this written? I'm doing a politics A level revision and you've spoken in the present tense so just trying to put some of the arguments into perspective. Much love, J.

Leave a Reply Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

The Comparative Powers of the Commons and Lords

The comparative powers of the commons and lords.

The Commons has supreme legislative power- the chamber proposes and passes laws, and can stop bills from being passed into law. The Lords cannot do this- it can only delay bills. The Commons also has ‘confidence and supply’ powers- the government only exists as long as it has the confidence of the Commons, and if defeated on a motion of confidence the government would step down, prompting a general election. ‘Supply’ refers to the Commons granting the government money through supporting legislation involving the supply of taxation, for example.

The Lords can delay bills passed by the Commons by up to one year, but there are exceptions to this. They cannot delay ‘money bills’ (bills with a significant financial aspect) or bills which were specifically outlined in the governing party’s manifesto- this second type of bill is protected under the Salisbury Convention. The Lords also has some veto powers, for example if the government tried to extend the life of a Parliament (so delaying a general election), this could be blocked by the Lords.

Comparative Powers

The Commons can be argued to be more powerful than the Lords because:

• Lords can only delay bills, and suggest amendments, which can then be overturned by the Commons (for example, in __2017 __the Lords attempted to add amendments onto the passing of the Article 50 bill to trigger the exit from the EU which guaranteed EU citizens’ rights for those already living in the UK. This was swiftly overturned by the Commons)
• Commons can actually vote down legislation, unlike the Lords
• Commons has vote of no confidence option, unlike the Lords
• MPs are more independently-minded than in the past, so are less likely to toe the party line- this makes the Commons more assertive against the government
• Commons is democratically legitimate- they have more of a right to challenge government
• Committees and PMQs are used to scrutinise government- the Prime Minister does not appear before the Lords to be challenged

The Lords can be argued to be powerful at challenging the government because:

• Party control is much weaker as Lords don’t need to be re-elected, so the government can’t rely even on their own party peers backing them
• More political balance in the Lords- no one party dominates
• More expertise/specialist knowledge- this means bills are potentially more carefully and effectively scrutinised
• Peers are from a range of backgrounds, so represent different groups and interests in society- this gives them some legitimacy
• Measures in the Commons such as PMQs are ineffective at properly challenging the government
• Government tends to dominate Commons, usually having a majority, meaning bills can be passed fairly easily

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• International
• Foreign affairs

First Sea Lord’s Sea Power Conference 2024: Minister Trevelyan's keynote speech

Minister for the Indo-Pacific Anne-Marie Trevelyan gave a keynote speech at First Sea Lord’s Sea Power Conference at Lancaster House in London.

First Sea Lord, Council for Geostrategy – thank you for bringing us all together once again, here at Lancaster House, our small residence that the Foreign Office likes to use to welcome our international friends and allies. I am delighted to have the opportunity to share a few thoughts in my capacity as Minister for the Indo-Pacific, and as a well known and often teased strong advocate of our Royal Navy. I mean, if there is an opportunity to go to sea, perhaps that will be the solution to many people’s challenges. I am always happy to take up that challenge.

But first, I would like to thank you and all those who serve in the Royal Navy - above and below the surface - for all that you do to keep our citizens and UK interests secure every single day.  

All too often, the Royal Navy’s continuous deployments go unnoticed, unknown to most and therefore unsung – though we in this room certainly understand the reasons why that must often be so. 

It has been interesting as a politician, as someone with a constituency, to watch those who never knew, or asked, what your sailors do, sit up and watch in amazement as young men and women aboard HMS Diamond shared the dramatic images of their elimination of drones attacking civilian shipping in the Red Sea. 

In awe, and honestly with pride, the Royal Navy and her exploits are being talked about in the pub (I can guarantee that one) and on dog walks by middle-aged ladies (because I went on one just the other day), as young and old are reminded of the threats to our assumed way of life.

Nor has the tireless work of our Royal Navy gone unnoticed by our adversaries, or those whom they seek to crush – as the challenges proliferate, we see your men and women step up across vast areas of ocean and an increasing breadth of activity.

Most critically of course, our submariners are deployed 24/7, 365 days a year, on our continuous at sea deterrent – silently patrolling global waters, the effective deterrent our adversaries know is there, somewhere, always ready to defend.

Protecting the freedom of navigation on which we all depend, wherever it is threatened is at the core of the Royal Navy’s work – and HMS Diamond has been demonstrating that at the centre of the UK’s critical role in the US-led international coalition to uphold freedom of navigation in the busy shipping lanes of Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden…

Sharing analysis from the UK Hydrographic Office has allowed US planners to establish the temporary pier needed to deliver aid to Gaza – with RFA Cardigan Bay playing a vital part…

And our sailors aboard HMS Tamar and HMS Spey in particular are working with countries in the Indo-Pacific, to build and protect sustainable blue economies that are so critical – supported by the UK’s £500m Blue Planet Fund…

As well as supporting small island states respond to shocks – like the crew of HMS Spey volunteering their free time to work alongside Tonga’s National Visually Impaired Association, in the wake of a devastating volcanic eruption and tsunami… and I can tell you they have got friends for life on that island. It was really touching to discover the affection with which the work they have just done made a difference.

These are just a few examples of the recent work you have been leading. So I know you all agree that it was great to hear the Prime Minister’s announcement on 2.5% of GDP for defence spending, and a first picture from the defence Secretary yesterday on what this might look like for the Royal Navy. 

As the Foreign Secretary said last week, this is a world more dangerous, more volatile, more confrontational, than most of us have ever known.  We need to face up to that fact and act accordingly.  Not in a year or two.  Not in a few months.  But now. 

What is going to be vital is that the new integrated procurement model which we have set out, must turn government’s relationship with industry into a true strategic partnership – the 2.5% commitment will allow long term planning on shipbuilding, for instance, which will be vital to our ability to get the next generation of ships and submarines into service as quickly as possible. Those platforms will carry the innovative inventions which give us that critical military advantage.  So we must now make industry the sixth domain of our defences.

Whilst government, or rather the taxpayer – those ladies keep telling me that when I do the dog walking – it’s their money not ours. They are funding the Royal Navy, it is our defence and security industries which deliver the infrastructure, skilled workforce and platforms, weapons and kit for that your sailors need to deploy.

This First Sea Lord’s Conference takes place as our world becomes increasingly dangerous, unstable and unpredictable.  We must not divorce foreign and economic policy from domestic politics.  All over the western world, we see the rise of political movements that want us to pull up the drawbridge, claiming that we will be better off if we focus purely on domestic concerns. But this is the wrong answer. Because what happens abroad matters directly to our citizens. 

Our approach must not be to ignore the rise of these movements. It must be to deal with what has caused them to grow, so we can engage with the world and therefore safeguard our national interests.  And so it is more important than ever that our understanding of the strategic importance of the maritime - from the margins of the conversation into the heart of foreign policy – is centre stage.

The impacts of

• Instability … in the Middle East;
• Aggression… in the Black Sea;
• Military and economic coercion in the South China Sea;

and the double-edged sword of emerging technologies are rippling out across the globe.

Households everywhere are feeling the pressure of all this on their budgets.  Fuel, food and fertiliser price spikes courtesy of Putin’s illegal war have shaken the economies of all, but the poorest have suffered most. 

Governments have had to underwrite these cost of living hikes where they can.

So after a long period of - perhaps naive – optimism, people now  understand once again why defence needs to be prioritised, and that the Royal Navy has a central role to play. 

Credible deterrence across these many unstable theatres requires our Royal Navy, alongside our allies and friends, to be fitter than ever  - to sustain free and open navigation routes, protecting undersea energy and cables, and assisting many countries in safeguarding the sovereignty of  their EEZs.

We must work with our US allies to take some of the strain in support of their leadership to assure the security of so many, from NATO on their east to Indo-Pacific friends on their west.

As I travel across the Indo-Pacific, all my conversations with  counterparts have the challenge of maritime security and protection on the agenda.

For the UK, our work across the Indo-Pacific continues to be a priority – as we set out in our integrated review refresh last year – the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific are indivisible.

Together, we are standing up for our shared security, freedom, and prosperity – and there is nothing selfless about wanting to focus on the two thirds of global maritime trade which passes through Indo-Pacific waters.

We are leaning into our role as Dialogue Partners in ASEAN and IORA, as well the Pacific Island Forum.   Our bilateral maritime dialogues with Brunei, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Philippines, and Vietnam are going from strength to strength, with Maritime Domain Awareness and then work on how to manage policing these waters once the malign activity is known at the heart of what we are doing– but sadly we know there is great deal more to do.

As the Defence Secretary highlighted, our second Naval Littoral Response Group is hard at work keeping the Indian Ocean safe and open.

The challenge we have set ourselves with the USA to help our Australian counterparts develop a nuclear-powered submarines fleet is going to require an enormous commitment from our British industries – it is they who are building new relationships with Australian companies, universities and state governments, to prepare for the SSN-AUKUS fleet. 

And we must never forget why this was agreed – it is because nuclear-powered submarines can travel greater distances, be undetected for longer, and therefore increase the credible deterrence to those who would wish to disrupt or deny the free flows of trade critical to Australia and all our economic security.

The hard work of getting SSN-AUKUS underway had been kicked off with £4bn of contracts to BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, and Babcock for the first elements of the UK’s SSN-AUKUS submarines. 

But this is just the tip of the iceberg – not in financial terms, but in the uplift in infrastructure and skills which will be needed to deliver it on time. This truly will need to be a national endeavour across all three nations for us to meet the challenge we have set ourselves. 

At its peak AUKUS – Pillar 1 -  is expected to support more than 21,000 jobs in the UK and will need Australia to grow a skilled workforce which presently does not exist.  So its great to see the Royal Navy welcoming Australian personnel as they begin their specialised training.

Pillar 2 activity is also getting into its stride - we have run a first series of successful AI and autonomous undersea capability trials with our AUKUS family. Later this year we will conduct trilateral maritime autonomy exercises.   We are also now considering other countries that might contribute to AUKUS Pillar 2 projects, with Japan in the first instance.

The AUKUS Industry Forum, Defence Investor Network, and electronic warfare Innovation Challenge, are all now up and running to help improve and strengthen engagement and real understanding between government and industry.  I will keep saying it – it is industry that builds the tools our sailors must have to deliver the effect we need.

We must get better at demonstrating that government understands that, if we are to go faster to get ahead of the threats we see growing around us.

As part of that effort, from next year, the UK, US, and Japan will hold regular trilateral military exercises – this will build on the continuous deployment of HMS Spey and HMS Tamar in the Indo-Pacific, and is part of the commitment we have made with the USA in the Atlantic Declaration and Japan in the Hiroshima Accord.

Next year will also bring CSG25 (maybe I can hitch a lift on that first, maybe that’s a solution). Our aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales will be deployed to the region at the head of a Carrier Strike Group, including a port visit in Japan. And I can tell you there is a long lists of states requesting where else they would like you to visit. Some of the smaller island states may be tricky to park, but we will have to work on that one.

This work is immensely important in and of itself – but it is increasingly important in light of the increasing number of incidents involving unsafe conduct against vessels in the South China Sea over recent months.

That includes actions by Chinese vessels against the Philippines coastguard which have endangered lives, caused damage to civilian vessels, and made headlines around the world – as tensions mount over the Second Thomas Shoal.

We expect all states to uphold UNCLOS – it has a vital role in upholding peace, prosperity, and security, by making sure we all play by a set of rules designed and agreed to guarantee all our futures.

So we will support our partners to shine a light on these actions that heighten tension, risk escalation, and threaten regional peace and stability.

Indeed, from the Caribbean to the Pacific Ocean, the Royal Navy’s Maritime Domain Awareness Programme sets the global gold-standard when it comes to building the trust, partnerships, and capabilities we need to plan-ahead and respond to everything from illegal fishing to state threats.

We hope to expand this shared security expertise further, because we all need to look beyond what seems most alarming in a headline – to scan the horizon for what should really be keeping us up at night, so we can get the right pieces into place, across multiple theatres.

And, while it may seem trite to say that ‘together, we are stronger’ – from NATO to the MDA Five Eyes Partnership Forum, we should recognise that even when trust has been strained, and our resolve tested, we hold firm.

As we continue to work on inter-agency cooperation, on integrated defence and security, and indeed counter-terrorism – let us be clear about what is at stake, right now.

For us Brits, our identity as a maritime nation is a deep and enduring part of our view of ourselves.

Around the globe, others are looking to us to make good on the promise of that legacy for our shared future – by defending the values we hold dear, not just for ourselves but for all whose who long to feel the benefits of freedom and prosperity in their lives as well.

Indeed, they are looking to all of us – as determined adversaries and ruthless opportunists seek to bludgeon the brave into submission – to support them as they are brave enough to stand up for the future they want to shape for their citizens. So we need to ensure that our Navy and armed forces have what they need to do so.

For all of us right now, we face a defining litmus test in Ukraine.

As we strive to sustain our unwavering support and galvanise others to their cause – it is important that we recognise that it is at sea where the allied contribution is felt most keenly, combined with the Ukrainians’ indomitable spirit.

The UK is providing 60 small boats, alongside our mighty Storm Shadows, and uncrewed sea systems, with some £2 billion earmarked to become Ukraine’s largest supplier of drones.

Alongside Norway, we are proud to be leading a new Maritime Capability Coalition. Together, we are providing mine detection drones, raiding craft, Sea King helicopters – helping Ukraine build its navy, develop a marine corps, and defend its sovereign waters.

And we know it is making a difference.

Ukraine has struck the Kremlin’s Naval HQ in Sevastopol, and sunk or disabled around a third of the Russian Black Sea Fleet – including the notorious Moskva, forcing the rest into hiding. But as you said, probably only for now.

In the first months of 2024, agricultural exports reached the highest level since the war began – getting grain from Ukraine to those who need it most, has been a key British focus, just as we work to disrupt Russia’s shadow fleet, and increase the cost of Putin’s war machine with the largest ever package of sanctions.

In short, the Ukrainians have the will, they have the skills, and they have proved their effectiveness – if we back them. The UK will commit at least £3 billion a year for military support to Ukraine – building on more than £7bn to date. We welcome the recent release of funding from the US, as well as the EU.  But it is up to all of us to make this a priority for as long as it takes for the Ukrainians to prevail.

The reality is that we MUST get on a war footing in order to safeguard peace once again – just as twelve founding NATO nations did 75 years ago, when they gathered in Washington D.C, after conflict had engulfed the globe for the second time in a generation.

We can be proud to be sending some 20,000 UK personnel to the enormous Exercise Steadfast Defender – with our carrier strike group out in full force.

And if all NATO countries were to commit at least 2.5% of their GDP to defence when we all meet in Washington this summer – as we in UK are now committed to – then our collective budget would increase by more than £140 billion.

But it’s not just a commitment for meeting a future figure, it’s about upping the pace on investing now in our defence industrial partners.  Then we really will be changing gear, enabling our defence industries, their innovation and people, to invent, build, weld, innovate to give us the hardware and the software our armed forces need in order to protect more than a billion people across the NATO family and global security – from malign actors who have been investing at an incredible rate, and for too long, we have just been watching

Ladies and gentlemen - It’s not all about NATO, it’s not all about maritime capability, and there’s only so far money goes.

There is more we can and must do to build more partnerships and achieve greater coordination. As I said last year, gunning for interoperability and interchangeability is a no-brainer.

There is more we can and must do to send the clear, unequivocal, united signal to our adversaries that we will stand up for our values and our freedom – that they will not grind us down, nor will they wear us out, nor divide us.

So we must make good on our word  – it will be mission critical to deterrence which is effective in keeping the peace because it is credible, and those who would wish us harm need to know that.

Be it in Ukraine or anywhere else, if we allow our word to be shot down by tyrants and chancers – we send our every adversary the signal that it is open season on all that we hold dear.

And in so doing, we would be gambling every gain hard-won – not only of the rules to which we have all signed up – but of the tacit good faith treaties on which we rely to hold the fragile peace.

We must do all we can to stack the odds in our favour. The future is not guaranteed. So it is up to all of us to write the next chapter together. Governments can and must provide the money and the leadership, but only industry can give us the tools to enable our brave military personnel to deliver that credible deterrence, denial capability or front-line defence should it be necessary.  That safe and secure, peaceful and prosperous world we wish for our children doesn’t come free.

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

Screw it, I'm building a house of graphics cards

It's what John Nvidia would have wanted

Read this next

• 'Don't worry! I'm a murderer!' - award-winning comedy Anthology of the Killer is out next week
• Wuthering Waves really, really doesn’t want to run on Steam Deck
• You’ll get Warner Bros brawler MultiVersus’ premium battle pass for free if you played the beta