Effectiveness Of Scrutiny Of The Executive

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

-Parliament can effectively scrutinise the work of the executive in several ways,despite their being limitations to their scrutiny of the government. Ways of scrutiny include: private ministers questions (PMQs), select committees and through the House of Lords

Question 2

PMQ - how can they scrutinise the gvt

• argument for - 4 bullet points
• argument against - 3 bullet points

Answer 2

• a way in which Parliament can scrutinise the government is through PMQs . This is 30 minutes given to MP’s every Wednesday where they are able to question the prime minister who has to answer infront of hundreds of people and defend their policies, which can be intimidating as they don’t know what will be asked.
• for example : Boris Johnson was questioned after exchanging text messengers with sir James Dyson over ventilators at the start of the covid 19 pandemic in 2021.
• this shows how PMQS are an effective form of scrutiny as MPs are trying to catch out / embarrass the PM and make it as hard as possible for the PM to answer questions, as well as causing concerns of the prime ministers honesty/integrity as it is all broadcasted meaning it’s watched.
• this means the Mp can control the PM to some extent an they have to answer and be quick on their feet
• HOWEVER. Despite this 30 minute oppurtunity, civil servants are able to give the PM lots of information on topics they may be asked about in which case they will have smart/ relevant answers.
• for example. During first Minister Nicola sturgeons question time in Scotland , she often came under attack about SNPs health and educational policies, Therefore was able to prepare.
• this therefore shows the PMQs may not be the most effective way of scrutinising the executive as it is not always fully the PMs knowledge or always on the spot.

Question 3

Select committees - how can they scrutinise

4 points for

Answer 3

• another way which Parliament offer effective scrutiny to the work of the government is through select committees: these ar groups of around 11MPs who monitor government departments by scrutinising government bills , gathering evidence and writing reports with recommendations to the relevant cabinet ministers.
• for example in 2016 the liaison committee called PM Theresa may before them and questioned her for 2 hours on her government plan on negotiating exit from the EU.
• therefore select committees are an effective form of scrutiny as they are given more time to scrutinise, meaning ministers struggle to get away or answer with brief / vague questions and have to respond in some way ti the scrutiny.
• as well as this : since governments normally make responses within 2 months of publication , committees are also considered quite effective as they are high profile and thet attract quite a lot of media attention: in turn influencing how the executive responds as they are pushed to respond properly and according to the sc recommendations.
• although despite this a majority government also means a majority in the committees
• : for example from 2011- 2016 the SNP had a majority in each of the committees , so weakening the oppositions ability to scrutinise the SNP a policy.
• it is therefore argued their ability to scrutinise the government is limited as their recommendations may have very little effect

Question 4

House of Lords

• 4 points for
• 4 points against

Answer 4

• the House of Lords , the second chamber of the UK Parliament is another way of scrutinising the government. It has around 800 members who are unelected , but appointed by the PM, and have expertise in parliamentary business and their job is to scrutinise and review bills that have been passed through the Commons
• after a bill has been passed through the commons , it goes to the lords and if they vote it through it is signed by the queen and becomes law. The lords ar able to delay bills and basically force the government to make changes to them
• for example in 2019-21 Boris Johnson suffered a record of 114 defeats in the lords.
• this shows that the hol can be effective in scrutiny of the gvt as the impact of them having control over bills, means that if the government wants a bill to be passed , rather than waiting a year to pass it they often just accept amendments recommends showing effectiveness
• however due to their unelected nature ,the lords power is limited to delaying bills for one year only, meaning after a year the government can re introduce the bills without opposition.
• as well as this the PM appoints many of the member in the Hol
• for example in 2015 former PM David Cameron appointed 26 conservative MPs in the House of Lords
• this therefore shows that the lords ability to scrutinise the executive is limited as the PMs appointed members increase the influence of their party, so the impact of this means future government defeats are much less likely .

Question 5

Conclusion

- 4 points

Answer 5

• In conclusion, Parliament have limited power to effectively scrutinise the gvt
• arguably select committees are the most effective form of scrutiny. This is because the MPs in the committees often have high expertise in the field which they scrutinise on and are also sometimes ready to break party loyalty allowing them to effectively hold government to account on specific topics.
• prime ministers questions can certainly be extremely effective at scrutinising the gvt, due to it being probably to most watched part of parliament. This means a poor performance may damage a PM and their parties reputation significantly. Although PMs often are able to dodge questions , not actually answering them an can be briefed, showing in fact PMQs cannot fully scrutinise the executive.
• the hol can be seen as the least effective at holding the gvt to account. Despite the fact that many if their recommendations on bills are often taken into account by gvt, showing effective scrutiny- members are often appointed by the prime minister. An influence of the party can have a big impact on government defeats.