Bochel, Hugh and Defty, Andrew (2010) A question of expertise: the House of Lords and welfare policy. Parliamentary Affairs, 63 (1). pp. 66-84. ISSN 0031-2290

	Microsoft Word Bochel__Defty_-_A_less_expert_house_-_parl_affs_(3)_HB_for_IR.docx - Whole Document Restricted to Repository staff only Download (37Kb)
Preview	PDF A_question_of_expertise_-_the_House_of_Lords_and_welfare_policy.pdf - Other Download (51Kb)

Abstract

The expertise of its members is often cited as one of the distinctive features of the House of Lords. In particular it is frequently argued that because of its composition, and in particular the existence of the Crossbench Peers, debates in the Lords are more informed than in the Commons. Peers, it has been claimed, bring professional experience and expertise to the scrutiny of legislation, and have the time to maintain their expertise, in contrast to the Commons, where MPs, because of the demands of re-election and constituency business, are sometimes seen as being required to know a little about a wide range of subjects. Moreover, the presumed expertise of the Upper House has also been central to debates about the reform of the House of Lords, with assertions that any further reform should retain the Lords’ ability to provide distinctive and informed scrutiny. Drawing on a series of interviews with a large sample of MPs and Peers this article seeks to examine what is meant by parliamentary expertise by focusing on one particular policy area – welfare. It seeks to explore the nature of parliamentary expertise on welfare in both Houses, and suggests that in the field of welfare the Upper House may, in fact, be less expert than the House of Commons.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	The expertise of its members is often cited as one of the distinctive features of the House of Lords. In particular it is frequently argued that because of its composition, and in particular the existence of the Crossbench Peers, debates in the Lords are more informed than in the Commons. Peers, it has been claimed, bring professional experience and expertise to the scrutiny of legislation, and have the time to maintain their expertise, in contrast to the Commons, where MPs, because of the demands of re-election and constituency business, are sometimes seen as being required to know a little about a wide range of subjects. Moreover, the presumed expertise of the Upper House has also been central to debates about the reform of the House of Lords, with assertions that any further reform should retain the Lords’ ability to provide distinctive and informed scrutiny. Drawing on a series of interviews with a large sample of MPs and Peers this article seeks to examine what is meant by parliamentary expertise by focusing on one particular policy area – welfare. It seeks to explore the nature of parliamentary expertise on welfare in both Houses, and suggests that in the field of welfare the Upper House may, in fact, be less expert than the House of Commons.
Keywords:	Parliament, House of Lords, Social policy, Welfare
Subjects:	L Social studies > L230 UK Government/Parliamentary Studies L Social studies > L410 UK Social Policy
Divisions:	College of Social Sciences > Faculty of Health & Social Sciences > School of Social & Political Sciences
Depositing User:	Hugh Bochel
Date Deposited:	26 Mar 2010 12:16
Last Modified:	17 Apr 2013 10:45
URI:	http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/2245

Actions (login required)

View Item