How effective is the scrutiny of parliament Flashcards
PMQ’s pros and cons
Pro: Gives positive publicity to the questioner and smaller parties. Tony Blair called PM John Major ‘weak, weak, weak’. Exposes weaknesses of executive. Keeps PM and ministers on their toes. Tony Blair once recalled that PMQ’s as the most nerve racking and nail biting experiences.
Cons: Convey an image of rowdiness and theatricals. Very male, very testosterone fuelled. Most questions are designed to either catch out opposition or praise own party.
Debates pros and cons
Pro: allow free expression of views and opinions about issues of the day. Televised so the public can watch and be informed, improves transparency. An opportunity to change how MPs and peers might vote.
Cons: MPs usually vote with the party and use their own speeches to impress leadership and further their own career. Few minds are changed by words spoken in the chamber.
Select committees pros and cons
Pro: less confrontational than debates and questions in the main chamber. Often chaired by MPs from opposition parties. Can call witnesses from both inside and outside government. Government forced to react to reports within 60 days. Reports often hard hitting, health select committee recommended measures against child obesity and within a month further measures were brought out to stop sweet and fatty food sales and checkouts
Con: The governing party always has a majority on committees, consensus between parties is not always reached. Witnesses can be evasive and elusive. Governments can and do ignore findings from select committees, they only have to respond not enact recommendations.
