Exam Questions May 2022: Role of Parliament and Efficacy of Parliamentary Scrutiny Flashcards
Give three scrutiny measures used by Parliament.
1) Committees - may conduct hearings into decisions made by gov. - e.g. Oliver Robbins in 2016 failed to answer questions regarding the UK border force - chair warned he may be held in contempt.
2) Parliamentary questions - 2017-18 55,000 questions answered - an increase of 42% over the previous year - means more ministers are kept in check as to lie or ignore questions would likely harm their repudiation and the gov’s.
3) E-petitions - 100,000 signatures must be considered for debate by the petitions committee - e.g. 2020 E-petition on NHS parking charges for staff - led to more money for NHS trusts to cover staff costs - encourages participation within system.
Give three functions of Parliamentary debates.
1) Scrutinise the gov. - e.g. spent, in summa, 700 hours debating fox hunting for the Hunting Act 2004 - ensures legislation is near faultless.
2) Raise awareness - debates in Westminster Hall may influence the operations of Parliament - e.g. 1 million signatures collected to prevent Trump making a state visit to Parliament - big debate in Parliament - Trump didn’t visit Parliament.
3) Encourage participation from minor parties - e.g. PMBs require debate on 10 bills by back benchers at the start of parliamentary year - e.g. David Steel - Lib Dem - proposed the bill that became the Abortion Act 1967 - gives a voice to those who voted minor parties - fuelling democracy.
Give three ways the House of Lords scrutinises the executive.
1) Statutory measures to express HoL’s authority - e.g. Parliament Act 191 and 49 - allows them to block a bill for up to a year - e.g. War Crimes Act 1991 - means policy change is slow - also consensus may have changed in 1 year’s time.
2) House of Lords committees - e.g. House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee - scans all bills produced by the government that may give power to public bodies a.k.a ‘enabling Acts’ - prevents local authorities gaining excessive powers.
3) Lords questions - 30 minutes Mon - Thurs - government spokesperson - e.g. 25th April 2022 - concerned the government’s response to tackling Malaria globally - less ‘Punch and Judy’ than PMQ’s meaning the questions may severely damage the reputation of the gov.
Give three ways committees scrutinise government.
1) Hearing and questioning - e.g. Liaison committee - chairs of all other committees - questions PM regarding policy 3 times per year - e.g. March 2022 - BJ was questioned about Ukraine and the cost of living.
2) Reports - drafted by committees to outline inadequacies within the gov’s actions - e.g. Joint Committee on Human Rights - produced a 110 page report into the gov’s use of drone strikes in 2015.
3) Chairs - may be elected from opposition parties - e.g. Nokes (Immigration Sec.) v. Cooper (Chair of Home Affairs Committee) - failed to provide immigration stats - discourse was considered damaging to Nokes’ career - now chair of Women’s Equality Committee.
Give three ways the opposition may scrutinise the executive.
1) Opposition days - 17 days annually dedicated to second largest party - 3 to minor parties - e.g. ‘P&O Ferries and employment rights’ - brought by Labour in March 2022 - significant as it is like PMQ’s but without the ‘patsy’ questions.
2) PMQ’s - questions designed to portray the gov as weak - may lead to effective media soundbites used against the executive - e.g. Jan 1997 Blair accused Major as being ‘weak, weak, weak’ - draws attention to valence issues - maintains the negative opinion of the government throughout their term.
3) Opposition may chair committees - e.g. Nokes v. Cooper (2019) - particularly harmful to Nokes’ career - now the chair of the Women’s Equality Committee - a downgrade.
Is parliamentary scrutiny of the executive effective regarding debates?
Is effective:
- Mondays are reserved for debates on E-petitions - 100,000 signatures must be considered for debate by the Petitions Committee - e.g. 2020 E-petition over parking charges for NHS staff - led to more funds for NHS trusts to cover the cost of parking.
Isn’t effective:
- Payroll vote - ministers cannot vote against the government unless they first resign - size of payroll has greatly increased 101 in 1960 to 141 in 2018 - government can secure unwavering support of their party - scrutiny is less effective as a result.
Is parliamentary scrutiny of the executive effective regarding Parliamentary questions?
Is effective:
- During 2017-18 55,000 questions were asked - increase of 42% over the previous year - upwards trajectory of increased scrutiny - PMQ’s is a feared practice - Blair equated it to being walked to his own execution.
Isn’t effective:
- Merely a theatre for ‘Punch and Judy politics’ and petty point-scoring - Bercow claimed it was ‘yobbery and public school twittishness’ - an opportunity to ask ‘patsy’ questions to the government - means the view of the government is improved in the eyes of the public.
Is Parliamentary scrutiny effective regarding committees?
Is effective:
- Opposition may chair committees - e.g. Cooper v. Nokes 2019 - led to scathing debate and standoff - harmful to Nokes’ career.
Isn’t effective:
- Proposals regularly go ignored - e.g. Constitution Unit 2009 - only 40% of proposals are acted upon - may be serious inadequacies with the bills that go undetected - judiciary pick up on these - challenging independence of the judiciary.
Are select committees effective at scrutinising the government regarding investigation of ministers?
Are effective:
- May summon ministers to give testimonies - Osmotherly rules encourage ministers to attend - may be in contempt for failure to attend - e.g. Oliver Robbins (Second Permanent Secretary of the Home Office) 2016 - failed to answer questions regarding the UK border force - not a serious offence.
Aren’t effective:
- Have limited powers of subpoena - limited in their ability to summon witnesses - e.g. Zuckerberg failed 3 times to attend the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2018 - appeared before a American committee in that same year.
Are select committees effective at scrutinising the government regarding producing reports?
Are effective:
- Reports may challenge government decisions - e.g. 2019 Transport Select Committee report into the government’s failure to tackle pavement parking - in 2020 DoT claimed it would consult on whether to give authorities more power.
Aren’t effective:
- Government are under no obligation to act upon reports/proposals - e.g. Constitution Unit found that, in 2009, only 40% of proposals were acted upon - even fewer led to legislative change.
Are select committees effective at scrutinising the government regarding party politics?
Are effective:
- Operate under less party-political manner than HoC - aim for consensus rather than competition between parties - even if governing party has a majority in the committee they may oppose the gov. - e.g. Treasury committee encouraged the gov. to continue the furlough scheme.
Aren’t effective:
- Party loyalties dilute the impartiality of committees - e.g. between 2010 and 2019 125/1325 reports were voted on along party lines - matter of Brexit were voted along leave/remain - means that the impartiality of committees is wasted.
Give three ways the House of Lords is an effective check on the executive.
1) HoL question time - 30 minutes at the start Mon-Thurs - questions are given to gov. spokesperson - e.g. 25th April 2022 - focused on the gov’s response to tackling malaria globally - less ‘Punch and Judy’ and fewer ‘patsy’ questions - questions may harm the reputation of the gov. more.
2) HoL committees scrutinise bills passed by Parliament - e.g. House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee - scan all gov. bills to ensure enabling Acts do not give too much power to local authorities - saves time - ensures effective scrutiny - impartial.
3) May invoke Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 - allows them to suspend legislation for one year - may lead to ‘ping ponging’ of legislation - e.g. Hunting Act 2004 - however the Salisbury Convention prevents this for policy that was part of the manifesto - primacy of the HoC over the HoL.
Give three ways the House of Lords is not an effective scrutiny of the executive.
1) Peers may have party allegiances - e.g. 225 Con peers - 168 Lab peers - Lords Questions may be used to ask ‘patsy’ questions to the government - meaning that the reputation of the government is improved - also increasing the change of promotion.
2) Power is statutorily limited - e.g. Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 - limit the time to 1 year for which HoL may block a bill - e.g. War Crimes Act 1991 - policy change is slow - also consensus may have changed by the time the block ends - government lack support to legislate.
3) Conventionally limited power - e.g. Salisbury Addison Convention 1945 - created by HoL to prevent them blocking Atlee’s manifesto policies e.g. NHS - use for Hunting Act 2004 that seeked to ban hunting - though it may be broken - not constitutionally enshrined - no consequence for breaking it.
Give three ways scrutiny of the opposition is effective.
1) PMQ’s - media create effective soundbites to be used against the gov. e.g. Blair accused Major of being ‘weak, weak, weak’ - though Starmer doesn’t seem to be fully utilising this strategy - any mud has been unable to remain stuck.
2) Opposition days - 17 days annually to the largest opposition party - e.g. March 2022 - Labour focused on ‘P&O Ferries and employment rights’ - may target sensitive topics currently in the media to portray the gov, in a negative light.
3) Committee chairs - e.g. Cooper v. Nokes - Home Affairs Committee - ‘stand-off’ when she failed to provide immigration figures’ - harmful to her career - resigned from ministerial post as a result.
Give three ways the scrutiny of the opposition is ineffectual.
1) PMQ’s - ‘Punch and Judy’ politics - method of petty point scoring - used to ask ‘patsy’ questions - e.g. 30th October 2002 - Andrew Miller opened with a ‘patsy’ question regarding the gov’s Sure Start Programme - Blair announced there would be a green paper.
2) Shadow cabinet - may alternative figures that realistically have the necessary qualities e.g. media presence to challenge ministers - e.g. current Labour shadow cabinet - apart from Miliband (climate change) and Rayner (deputy leader) - all are largely unknown - cannot be an effective scrutiny if the media and public lack knowledge about them.
3) Executive tyranny - gov. sets agenda and keeps MPs in line with whips - Political commentator Philip Cowley claimed Con. whips kept a black book with MPs misdemeanours for leverage - e.g. 21 were suspended in 2019 for refusal to vote in favour of no-deal - opposition fight on its own terms and against a majority of gov’s MPs.
