Edexcel A-Level Politics 9PL0 · Paper 2 UK Government · Content area 3 of 6

3. Parliament

3.1 the structure of Parliament · 3.2 the functions of Parliament · 3.3 scrutiny in practice · 3.4 how effective is Parliament, and the case for Lords reform.

← All areasPurple = thinker · Orange = example

Every bar below is a drop-down and starts closed. Click one to open it.

Progress

3.1 The structure of Parliament: the Commons and the Lords Done

Essential The make-up of the two chambers: who sits in each, how they get there, and how their powers differ. This is the knowledge base every Parliament essay draws on.

The specification

3.1The structure and role of the House of Commons and House of Lords

The Commons has 650 elected MPs; the Lords has around 800 unelected peers. I can do this

Lords members are life peers (the majority since the 1958 Life Peerages Act), 88 remaining hereditary peers, and 26 bishops as Lords Spiritual. I can do this

Around 180 crossbenchers in the Lords carry no party whip, which makes the chamber hard for any government to control. I can do this

Wording above follows the Pearson specification. Tick a line only when you could answer on it without notes.

Past questions - how it has been examined

Directly: 2021 Q1a (the roles and membership of the Lords require reform, source) sets composition at the centre of the question.
As the framing: 2025 Q2a (the role of backbenchers in the Commons) and 2024 Q1a (an elected House of Lords, source) both turn on who sits in each chamber and how.

Pattern. Composition is rarely the whole question, but every Parliament answer needs it as evidence. Learn the make-up of both chambers as the foundation for the functions and reform essays.

What examiners reward and penalise

Stronger answers link composition to consequence - an unelected, crossbench-heavy Lords behaves differently from an elected Commons, and that difference drives the whole topic.
Weaker answers recite numbers of peers with no argument attached, which earns AO1 but little AO2.

One way to get high marks

Credited: the Commons draws its authority from election while the Lords draws its from expertise and independence, so the two chambers are built to do different jobs.
Rewarded evidence: 650 elected MPs, around 800 peers, the 1958 Life Peerages Act, the 88 hereditary peers left after the 1999 House of Lords Act, the 26 bishops, and the roughly 180 crossbenchers.
Level 5 over Level 4: explains why the make-up of each chamber matters for its role, rather than describing the two chambers in turn.

The 30-mark questions. Marks split 10/10/10 across AO1 (knowledge), AO2 (analysis) and AO3 (evaluation), so an answer that describes without judging throws away a third of the marks. Examiners reward a clear and consistent line of argument: decide your view before you write, argue it in every paragraph, weigh the counter-argument as you go, and reach a substantiated judgement. A one-sided essay is capped at Level 2 however much it knows, and you should structure by theme rather than as a list of examples. On the Question 1 source question you must use the source - compare the two opposing views it contains and judge between them; ignoring the source caps the answer.

Open any past question linked above to read its full mark scheme and examiner report in the Question Bank.

Arguments and counter-arguments

Does the make-up of the House of Lords help or harm Parliament?

It helps

Point. The appointed, crossbench-heavy Lords brings expertise the elected Commons lacks. Explanation. Many peers are former judges, doctors, scientists and senior officials who can scrutinise technical detail few MPs could match. Example. Lords committees such as the Constitution Committee carry the deepest expertise in Parliament and shape technical legislation. Evaluation. However, expertise without an electoral mandate gives the chamber influence but not authority, so its advice can always be overridden.
Point. Independence from the whips lets the Lords think for itself. Explanation. With around 180 crossbenchers and no single-party majority, the chamber is hard to whip and serious about detail. Example. The Lords forced a full government retreat over tax credits in October 2015, a defeat the whipped Commons would not have delivered. Evaluation. This is a genuine strength, though the chamber's restraint depends on conventions rather than hard rules.

It harms

Point. An unelected second chamber lacks democratic legitimacy. Explanation. Peers are appointed or inherit their place, so they answer to no voters and can claim no mandate. Example. The 88 hereditary peers who sat until the 2024 Hereditary Peers Bill held their seats purely by birth. Evaluation. This is the central charge against the chamber, and the main reason reform stays on the agenda.
Point. Appointment can look like patronage. Explanation. Prime Ministers nominate many life peers, so the chamber can be filled with party loyalists and donors. Example. Successive resignation honours lists have drawn criticism for rewarding political service rather than expertise. Evaluation. This weakens the expertise defence, though the crossbench element still keeps a large independent core.

Best judgement. The Lords' make-up gives Parliament real expertise and independence that the Commons cannot supply, but the absence of an electoral mandate caps its authority and keeps the case for reform alive.

Using it in essays

30-mark: roles-and-membership-of-the-Lords questions (2021 Q1a).
Topic sentence: "The two chambers are built differently on purpose: the Commons for democratic authority, the Lords for expertise and independence."
Final judgement: composition is a strength of the Lords up to the point where the lack of a mandate becomes the binding limit.

Practise this on PantherLords reform notes Lords reform walk-through

Wider context

Helpful context (background, not a spec requirement)

The cleanest way to hold this subsection together is to ask, for each chamber, where its authority comes from - the ballot box for the Commons, expertise and independence for the Lords. That single contrast explains why they behave so differently.

Examination priority

Important Learn the make-up of both chambers as ready evidence. It underpins the functions essay and the whole Lords reform debate.

3.2 The functions of Parliament Done

Essential The five jobs Parliament is meant to do - make law, scrutinise, represent, debate and supply the government - and how well each is fulfilled.

The specification

3.2The main functions of Parliament and the extent to which they are fulfilled

Parliament's main functions are legislating, scrutinising the executive, representing constituents, debating and recruiting government. I can do this

Legislation passes through stages in both Houses; the Salisbury Convention stops the Lords blocking manifesto bills. I can do this

Government is drawn from and stays accountable to Parliament, which can in theory remove it through a vote of no confidence. I can do this

Wording above follows the Pearson specification. Tick a line only when you could answer on it without notes.

Past questions - how it has been examined

Directly: 2023 Mock Q1a (Parliament is largely effective at challenging the Government, source) and 2022 Q1a (Parliament is largely ineffective in shaping legislation, source) both turn on how well the functions are performed.
As the framing: 2023 Q2a (MPs fulfilling their responsibilities) tests the representation and scrutiny functions through the role of the individual MP.

Pattern. The board keeps asking whether Parliament performs a named function well - usually scrutiny or legislation. Learn the functions as a checklist, then judge each against the executive that dominates them.

What examiners reward and penalise

Stronger answers judge each function against a clear test - does Parliament actually shape the outcome, or only describe and expose it - rather than listing the functions in turn.
Weaker answers assume that because Parliament holds a function it performs it well, and miss how far the executive controls the legislative timetable.

One way to get high marks

Credited: the functions cut both ways - Parliament legitimises and scrutinises law, but the government usually controls which law passes and when.
Rewarded evidence: the stages of the legislative process, the Salisbury Convention, the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 capping Lords delay at about a year, and the vote of no confidence that removed the government in 1979.
Level 5: reaches a defensible verdict on whether Parliament performs the named function effectively, weighing legitimising against controlling.

Open any past question linked above to read its full mark scheme and examiner report in the Question Bank.

Arguments and counter-arguments

Does Parliament shape legislation effectively?

Yes

Point. Legislation cannot become law without Parliament's consent. Explanation. Every bill must pass stages in both Houses, which gives Parliament the power to amend and to delay. Example. The Lords pressed over a thousand amendments on the Assisted Dying Bill in 2026, reshaping the detail before it could proceed. Evaluation. However, the government usually controls the timetable, so amendment happens within limits the executive sets.
Point. The second chamber forces the Commons to think again. Explanation. A Lords defeat sends a bill back and can extract concessions before it passes. Example. The Lords blocked the Rwanda Bill in 2024 and won amendments to the Pension Schemes Bill in 2026. Evaluation. This is real influence, though the Parliament Acts mean the Commons can ultimately override the Lords.

No

Point. Government dominates the legislative stages. Explanation. Public Bill Committees, which examine bills line by line, are whipped and reconstituted for every bill, so government amendments are almost always the only ones to pass. Example. These committees were left untouched by the 2010 Wright reforms and remain the weakest link in scrutiny. Evaluation. This is a powerful objection, because it bites at the exact stage where law is actually written.
Point. Conventions limit how far the Lords can shape law. Explanation. The Salisbury Convention stops the chamber blocking manifesto bills and the Parliament Acts cap delay at about a year. Example. The Lords could not stop a manifesto commitment even where it disagreed sharply with the detail. Evaluation. This shows the second chamber revises and delays rather than truly shapes the core programme.

Best judgement. Parliament shapes legislation at the margins - amending, delaying and forcing second thoughts - but the government's control of the timetable and the whipped legislative stages means it rarely shapes the heart of a bill.

Using it in essays

30-mark: Parliament-and-legislation or Parliament-and-scrutiny questions (2022 Q1a, 2023 Mock Q1a).
Topic sentence: "Parliament legitimises and revises legislation, but the executive that controls the timetable usually controls the outcome."
Final judgement: effective at consent and revision, limited at shaping the core of government law.

Practise this on PantherScrutiny walk-through Scrutiny notes

Wider context

Helpful context (background, not a spec requirement)

A useful frame is to sort each function into two boxes: things Parliament can compel the government to do, and things it can only expose or describe. Most functions sit nearer the second box, which is the key to judging effectiveness.

Examination priority

Important Hold the five functions as a checklist and pair each with one test of effectiveness. The legislation and scrutiny functions are the ones the board sets most often.

3.3 Scrutiny in practice: backbenchers, select committees, the Lords, opposition Done

Essential The working tools of accountability: how backbenchers, select committees, the Lords and the opposition actually hold the executive to account between elections.

The specification

3.3The ways Parliament interacts with the executive

Departmental select committees have had chairs elected by secret ballot since the 2010 Wright reforms, which freed them from the whips. I can do this

Backbench rebellions have risen in every parliament since 2001, and the threat of one often forces concessions before any vote. I can do this

Urgent questions, granted by the Speaker, force a minister to the Commons the same day on the issue of the moment. I can do this

Wording above follows the Pearson specification. Tick a line only when you could answer on it without notes.

Past questions - how it has been examined

Directly: 2025 Q2a (the role of backbenchers in the Commons) and 2023 Q2b (select committees are the most effective form of scrutiny) target the working scrutiny tools.
As the framing: 2023 Q2a (MPs fulfilling their responsibilities) and 2019 Q2b (the Lords has less power than the Commons but more influence on scrutiny) both test scrutiny in practice.

Pattern. Expect a question on one named mechanism - backbenchers, select committees or the Lords. Use paired contrasts so you can show strong and weak scrutiny in the same answer.

What examiners reward and penalise

Stronger answers separate exposure from enforcement - committees and urgent questions expose the executive well, but rarely force it to change course - and judge mechanisms against that distinction.
Weaker answers describe each mechanism in turn and treat any high-profile scrutiny, such as PMQs, as if visibility proved effectiveness.

One way to get high marks

Credited: the strongest scrutiny is independent, on the record and media-visible, but almost all of it stops at exposure - it produces answers, not amendments.
Rewarded evidence: the Wright reforms 2010, the Public Accounts Committee backed by the National Audit Office, the Windrush hearings (2018) that led to Rudd's resignation, the mini-budget hearings of October 2022, and the 2025 welfare rebellion of more than 50 Labour MPs.
Level 5: reaches a verdict on which mechanism is most effective and defends it against the others, rather than ranking them by profile.

Open any past question linked above to read its full mark scheme and examiner report in the Question Bank.

Arguments and counter-arguments

Are select committees the most effective form of parliamentary scrutiny?

Yes

Point. Select committees are independent and put ministers on the record. Explanation. Since the Wright reforms their chairs are elected by secret ballot, so the whips no longer control them. Example. The Home Affairs Committee's Windrush hearings in 2018 contributed to the Home Secretary's resignation. Evaluation. However, around two-thirds of significant committee recommendations are never implemented, so the influence has a hard ceiling.
Point. The Public Accounts Committee changes how government spends. Explanation. Chaired by an opposition MP by convention and backed by National Audit Office evidence, it makes departments alter spending practice. Example. It is usually rated the most effective committee in Parliament for exactly this reason. Evaluation. This is real enforcement, though it is confined to value for money rather than policy in general.

No

Point. Backbench rebellions can compel the government directly. Explanation. When a government's majority is small, the threat of a rebellion forces it to negotiate or retreat. Example. In spring 2025 the Starmer government dropped the deepest version of its welfare cuts after a rebellion of more than 50 Labour MPs. Evaluation. This bites harder than a committee report, though three-line whip votes still pass around 99% of the time.
Point. The Lords often achieves more on the detail of law. Explanation. Free of the whips and rich in expertise, the second chamber can force the Commons to think again. Example. The Lords blocked the Rwanda Bill in 2024 and forced a full government retreat over tax credits in 2015. Evaluation. This shows committees are not always the sharpest tool, even if they are the most visible.

Best judgement. Select committees are the strongest sustained scrutiny the Commons does, but they expose more than they enforce, so on the rare occasions scrutiny changes the outcome it is usually a Lords defeat or a backbench rebellion that does it.

Using it in essays

30-mark: committee-effectiveness and backbench-role questions (2023 Q2b, 2025 Q2a).
Topic sentence: "Parliament scrutinises the executive visibly and often, but the mechanisms that change the outcome are rebellions and Lords defeats, not the most high-profile ones."
Final judgement: committees lead on exposure; rebellions and the Lords lead on enforcement.

Practise this on PantherScrutiny grid Committees grid

Wider context

Helpful context (background, not a spec requirement)

Run every mechanism through one test: does it only expose the executive, or can it actually force a change of course. That single sort separates PMQs from urgent questions, and committee reports from backbench rebellions, every time.

Examination priority

Important This is the most-set debate in the area. Prepare two paired contrasts and a clear line on exposure against enforcement.

3.4 How effective is Parliament, and the case for Lords reform Done

Essential The synthesis question: weighing Parliament's overall effectiveness against the executive, and the live argument over whether the Lords should be elected, reformed or left as it is.

The specification

3.4The overall effectiveness of Parliament and proposals for reform

Executive dominance describes how a government with a Commons majority can usually control Parliament's business. I can do this

Reform of the Lords could mean an elected chamber, a wholly appointed one, a partly elected hybrid, or abolition. I can do this

The 2012 plan for an elected Lords was abandoned, and the 2024 Hereditary Peers Bill removed the remaining 88 hereditary peers. I can do this

Wording above follows the Pearson specification. Tick a line only when you could answer on it without notes.

Past questions - how it has been examined

Directly: 2026 Q1a (the executive now dominates Parliament, source), 2024 Q1a (an elected House of Lords, source) and 2020 Q1a (the principal role of Parliament, source) all turn on overall effectiveness and reform.
Related: 2026 Q1b (Commons committees are highly effective, source) and 2019 Q2b (the Lords exerts more influence than its power suggests) cover the same effectiveness debate.

Pattern. The big synthesis question - is Parliament effective, or does the executive dominate it - is a banker. So is the elected-Lords question. Prepare one balanced verdict on each.

What examiners reward and penalise

Stronger answers judge Parliament against the executive that dominates it, and on Lords reform weigh democratic legitimacy against expertise rather than asserting one side.
Weaker answers conclude that an elected Lords must be better because elections are democratic, ignoring the expertise and revising role the change would put at risk.

One way to get high marks

Credited: Parliament is better at exposing the executive than at compelling it, and an elected Lords would gain legitimacy but might lose independence and expertise.
Rewarded evidence: the Wright reforms 2010, the Salisbury Convention, the Parliament Acts capping delay at about a year, the abandoned 2012 elected-Lords plan, and the 2024 Hereditary Peers Bill.
Level 5: sustains a verdict on whether the executive dominates, or on whether the Lords should be elected, instead of listing reform options.

Open any past question linked above to read its full mark scheme and examiner report in the Question Bank.

Arguments and counter-arguments

Should the House of Lords be elected?

Yes

Point. An elected chamber would have democratic legitimacy. Explanation. Members chosen by voters could claim a mandate to revise and even resist government, which an appointed chamber cannot. Example. The unelected status of the Lords is the standing reason its defeats can always be overridden by the Commons. Evaluation. However, two elected chambers could deadlock, since the Lords would then have the authority to push back far harder.
Point. Election would end appointment by patronage. Explanation. Replacing prime-ministerial nominations with the ballot box would remove the charge that the chamber rewards donors and loyalists. Example. The 2024 Hereditary Peers Bill already removed the indefensible hereditary element, showing reform is live. Evaluation. This is a real gain in fairness, though it would not by itself guarantee a more expert chamber.

No

Point. Election would cost the chamber its expertise and independence. Explanation. Crossbenchers and specialists rarely win partisan elections, so an elected Lords would be more party-political and less expert. Example. Lords committees currently hold the deepest expertise in Parliament, drawn from former judges, scientists and officials. Evaluation. This is the strongest objection, because it would trade a working revising chamber for a second political one.
Point. Reform repeatedly fails because the change is contested. Explanation. Governments find that the detail of an elected chamber splits their own side and the parties. Example. The 2012 elected-Lords plan was abandoned after a Conservative backbench rebellion and Labour opposition to the timetable. Evaluation. This shows the appetite for wholesale election is weaker than the principle suggests, so incremental reform is the more likely route.

Best judgement. An elected Lords would gain legitimacy and end patronage, but it would risk the expertise, independence and revising role that make the chamber useful, so the stronger case is for continued incremental reform rather than wholesale election.

Using it in essays

30-mark: executive-dominance and elected-Lords questions (2026 Q1a, 2024 Q1a).
Topic sentence: "Parliament holds the executive to account visibly but rarely decisively, and reforming the Lords by election would solve its legitimacy problem only by creating new ones."
Final judgement: the executive usually dominates; the Lords is best reformed step by step, not replaced by an elected chamber.

Practise this on PantherLords reform walk-through Lords reform timeline

Wider context

Helpful context (background, not a spec requirement)

A neat way to judge overall effectiveness is to ask, across a whole parliament, how often Parliament actually changed what the government did against how often it merely commented. The gap between the two is the measure of executive dominance.

Examination priority

Important Two banker questions live here: does the executive dominate Parliament, and should the Lords be elected. Lock in a balanced verdict and dated evidence for each.

Test Section test - 12 questions

Twelve mixed questions covering the whole area. Your most recent score shows in the top bar.

Practise this topic on Panther

Scrutiny notes Scrutiny walk-through Scrutiny grid Committees grid Lords reform notes Lords reform walk-through Quiz

← Devolution and reform The Prime Minister and the executive →