Parliament Flashcards
Using the source, evaluate the view that Prime Ministers Questions should be abolished and replaced by other forms of parliamentary scrutiny of the executive.
Intro:
- shouldn’t be abolished for example its intense scrutiny of a broad range of topical issues which doesn’t occur in any other democratic countries in this way.
- inefficient and there are much better forms available to provide scrutiny for our functioning democracy.
- shouldn’t be abolished, but wide area for improvement
1: getting `straight answers is almost impossible,…, providing accomplished waffle’.
Example = speaker Lindsay Hoyle reminding Boris Johnson to actually answer the question in ⅓ of PMQs and in 2021 he reiterated the need to be ‘somewhere near’ the question actually asked and was reminded that ‘it is Prime Ministers Questions, not Opposition questions’
- usually result in the PM reversing the question back on to the person who asked it, totally defeating the purpose of the concept of PMQs
- Nick Clegg stated that PMQs were ‘ridiculous and an absolute farce’
- attempt to steer attention away from actual problems in the government and disguise any wrongdoing.
So: This shows that PMQs don’t allow detailed scrutiny of the government, unlike select committees that have more scrutiny powers as PMQs usually consist of 30 minute insult sessions between each leader
However: they provide the opportunity of scrutiny which is an essential part of our democratic system.
- If PMQs are abolished we ‘lose a fragment of parliamentary democracy which makes us so distinct’,
- even the most accomplished performers dread them’ as the ‘art of PMQs is to avoid embarrassment’. All PMs fear PMQs as the PM has to respond to difficult questions live on TV for all the public to see. This puts them under pressure and with little time to prepare an answer.
Example = Peter Kyle and train strikes who set up an emergency All Party Parliamentary Groups of MPs whose local areas are affected by Southern Rail on behalf of all customers affected.
This suggests that scrutiny is still present and there is definitely room for improvement but abolishing it will only reduce our true democracy
2: PMQs should be abolished andreplaced with more effective scrutiny systems.
- ‘more effective scrutiny would arise from the greater reliance on select committees and more power to backbenchers’
Example = Liaison committee questions PM for 2 hours 3 times a year in depth (of which is made up of very experienced heads of select committees), this could be beneficial if more powers were added in replacement of abolishing PMQs as the committee can then question the PM in further depth more frequently to assure improved levels of scrutiny.
- other select committees like the Business Backbench Committee (BBC) give opportunities to backbench Members of Parliament to bring forward debates of their choice which could bring further scrutiny if more powers were dedicated to select committees to enhance scrutinising government in replacement of PMQs
However: don’t abolish, just improve
- ‘banning backbenchers from shouting out would be a start’. Chanting and jeering over opposition parties and as a response to accusations undeniably hinders the severity of the need for scrutinising the government, and is used as a distraction away from attention.
- ‘having TV cameras encourages them to behave worse’ and also means that seriousness is questioned because as they know they are on TV, comments and accusations might be said to purely please the public, rather than being honest.
3: time to actually discuss issues and scrutinise the PM is very limited, ‘the main exchange between leader of opposition and Prime Minister lasts 10 minutes, as the leader only gets to ask6 questions’.
- scrutiny is very ineffective here as the leader of the opposition party and backbench MPs can’t cover all important topics and can’t represent most important populational issues.
However: if reformed,
- there could be new policies put in place that ensure questions are answered properly and that backbenchers cannot distract the leader in question,
- yet even now Prime Ministers can be asked about a wide range of topics, at the moment topics such as Ukraine, the Covid pandemic, NHS/maternity scandal, satisfaction surveys, education and the cost of living crisis were covered in a single PMQ session
Evaluate the view that although the House of Lords has less power than the House of Commons, in practice it exerts more influence on government decisions.
1: The Government are less likely to be able to pass a piece of legislation through the lords unopposed; this is because of there is no fusion of powers in the lords comparable to that of the commons
- Lords often scrutinise legislation more effectively than commons because of their independence and no fusion of powers.
-therefore, the government are more frequently defeated in the lords. Seen in recent years due to weak parliamentary standing of govs
Salisbury convention was suspended by lib peers 2010-2015 as no clear mandate.
2: the Lords lack democratic legitimacy
- Dominance of the Commons over the Lords - ultimately the commons has secured legislative primacy owing to its comparitive democratic legitimacy - this allows it to have overall greater influence in balancing the power of the government
- Commons have electoral mandate. Mandate to implement manifesto and have largest influence on legislation.
- Government backed legislation from commons most likely kind to pass -normally comes from manifesto. Legislation made by lords can also been thrown out by the commons in the reading stages and the government can whip MPs against it. The lords power to create legislation is therefore limited.
- In addition, most of their time is spend scrutinising legislation and bills from the commons, rather than actively scrutinising ministers
- The Parliament Act 1911 stripped away its financial controls.
- The Salisbury Convention enshrined the constitutional principle that the upper house must not block items contained in the government’s manifesto
3: MPs and peers can both propose legislation and amendments
- All MPs and Lords can introduce ‘Private Member Bills’ (PMBs) to Parliament.
- And equally, peers amend bills in the Lords.
- For example, in 2019 Lord Hunt introduced the Organ Donation Act 2019 to change the law on organ donation
- To illustrate, the Lords amended the Same Sex Couples Act 2013 to allow for opt-outs for the Church of England.
BUT
- However, peers are expected to ‘give way’ to the government during the process of ‘ping-pong’. This is due to the lack of democratic legitimacy and the Salisbury Convention.
4: the commons has sole financial control
- Effective monitoring of government expenditure—and ultimately the exercise of effective control over it—is one of the core functions of any legislature.
- only it has the right to amend the annual government Finance Bill. The Parliament Act 1911 stripped the Lords of any controls over finance.
Using the source, evaluate the view that the roles and membership of the House of Lords requires reform.
1: Elected chamber (argue why this would be a good reform for the HoL)
- Increased credibility and public support
Wider rep. Through the use of different electoral systems > would also allow for smaller parties to have more influence on the legislative process
Would grant democratic legitimacy
Introducing an equally powerful second chamber
More responsive to public opinion / accountability
However: Non-elected means…
Allows for specialist knowledge and expertise
Gridlock prevention
Allows for descriptive representation
Appointed members are less partisan
Voting apathy would increase with increased elections
2: Peerages can be offered as part of
patronage
- We can conclude that the current system is open to abuse of patronage and therefore the membership of the Lords requires reform.
- clear statistical link between large
donors and successful nomination to
the Lords is evidence that rich donors
are being rewarded by becoming peers
Example = cash for honours scandal
3: The House is not representative.
- The average age of the Lords is 70; just
over a quarter are women and only 6%
are from ethnic minorities whilst the
educational background and class
background of peers is also very
skewed.
- needs of minority groups can be met if reformed
Using the source, evaluate the view that Parliament is largely ineffective in shaping government legislation.
1: Only government proposed amendments succeed in the Commons.
- there is a lack of time and specialism in party
- whipped public bill committees
- the HOL has limited powers due to its undemocratic nature
- govt bills are rarely defeated, in mandate
- due to majority for the gov, the whip system and party loyalty in the Commons, nearly all successful amendments to bulls require gov backing.
public bill committees have long been criticised for their weaknesses; lack of time and their partisan approach which limits effective scrutiny of gov leg.
unelected HOL is limited by the Parli Acts, the Salisbury Convention and Commons’ financial privilege effectively limits the Lords’ power over govt leg
- Govs domination of commons makes parli largely ineffective at shaping gov leg
lack of effective scrutiny at this stage
- prevents the commons from improving gov leg
- lords is not fit for purpose as it acting beyond its constitutional role in challenging the will of the elected gov
- parli inability to say no to gov leg means its ineff at shaping gov leg
However:
- gov shapes and amends its leg in order to maintain the support of its own backbenchers
pub bill committees in the house can trigger changes in leg due to pressure from opposition and due to the nature of evidence from outside experts
HOL is under no party control making it difficult for the gov to pass legislation
- reason the gov suffers so few defeats in parli, it shapes it leg and makes concessions in the form of amendments to win over a major of votes in both houses to pass leg
pub bill committees allow non-gov parliamentarians and outside experts to alert ministers abt where changes are needed, even if those changes are proposed by ministers
gov is more likely to suffer defeats in the Lords than the Commons, and these defeats often trigger changes to gov leg as the gov prefers negotiation to confrontation
- parli is effective at shaping gov leg by forcing gov t shape and amend the bills to win parli support
most amendments are proposed by ministers, the gov is willing to incorporate changes that improve leg proving that parli is effective
the lords is effe at shaping gov leg, by making gov amend leg to win over a majority in the lords in order to pass leg
Using the source, evaluate the view that the principle role of backbench MPs is now to hold the government to account.
Intro: backbench MPs can influence their power to not only hold government to account, but also exercise serious scrutiny, redress their constituents’ grievances and enact Private Member’s Bills into law.
1: Whips are weaker and MPs are
increasingly willing to defy the whip
to hold the government to account
and force them to back down.
- The increasing number of
backbench rebellions and cross
party amendments shows that
backbench MPs see their principal
role as holding the government to
account
However: Executive dominance will return.
- The electoral system is likely to
produce future majority
governments (as in the 2019
election) in which the role of
backbench MPs will be less
significant
2: There have been significantly more
government defeats in the
Commons than in the period 1945
to 1970.
- The substantial increase in the
number of government defeats in
the Commons, especially since
2017, shows that backbench MPs
are taking their role in holding the government to account more seriously
However: Backbench MPs from the governing party tend to support the executive.
3: May suffered a historic defeat on
Brexit.
- May suffered the largest
Commons defeat in modern
parliamentary history which shows
that backbench MPs see their
principal role as holding the
government to account.
- We can conclude from this that the principal
role of backbench MPs is to hold the
government to account.
However: Brexit is a one-off.
- May’s experience is very unusual
and temporary, due to her
minority government and the
deep Conservative party divisions
over Brexit.
4: Backbenchers have increasingly use
their powers to hold the government to account.
- The Wright reforms have allowed
more independently minded MPs
to hold the government to
account whilst MPs are more
willing to use urgent questions
However: Backbench MPs have other duties such as representing their constituents.
Evaluate the effectiveness to which the HoL can act as a check on the HoC
HoL is now outdated and should be abolished or replaced
Evaluate the extent to which Parliament carries out its functions effectively
1: Fused Executive and Legislative Branches Makes It Hard To Challenge Government Bills
- The UK has a weak separation of powers.
- the prime minister and government ministers can vote in Parliament, as they are simultaneously members of the executive and legislative branches of government. This gives the government a head start when counting up support for its legislation, as it is rather unlikely for members of the government to break the constitutional convention of Collective Responsibility in order to oppose government bills.
- this can make the legislative process efficient as the government can quite easily carry out its agenda.
However: Parliament is effective in fulfilling its functions because parliamentary majorities have become increasingly unlikely and because of this rebellions have become more frequent and popular
- Under the Coalition, backbenchers rebelled more than in any Parliament since 1945. The defeat of the House of Lords Reform Bill was the largest rebellion against a second reading since 1945
- Theresa May’s government faced several rebellions over Brexit, especially by the DUP even though they were part of the confidence and supply deal.
2: Parliament has limited power to challenge the use of prerogative powers by the Prime Minister
- The Royal Prerogatives are the powers that are legally possessed by the monarch, but by convention are used by the prime minister and other ministers. These powers include entering into armed conflict, granting Royal Charters, conducting diplomacy and making treaties, and appointing government ministers. These powers are exercised without the need for Parliamentary approval, making scrutiny and opposition extremely difficult.
Example = David Cameron’s decision to authorise drone strikes in Syria in September 2015 demonstrated that, despite the developing convention that Parliament should approve acts of war, the PM can choose to act against the express wishes of Parliament.
However: The Prime Minister has proven reluctant to declare military action without Parliament
- Cameron’s use of drones was an exception to the recently developing rule that Parliament should be given a vote prior to military action. In 2013, Cameron wanted to order military action in Syria, after it was claimed that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against its own citizens. However, instead of just giving the order, Parliament was given a vote, and the motion was defeated. In September 2014, Cameron also recalled Parliament from its summer recess to debate a motion on using air strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq.
3: Unrepresentative
- Women only make up around a third of Parliament, compared to over 50% of the of the general population; likewise ethnic minority groups make up only 6% of Parliament, versus 13% of the UK population. Similarly, 1/3 of MPs attended feepaying schools (compared with 7% of the population) and 90% attended university, much higher than the national average. Furthermore, 26% of Parliament attended Oxford or Cambridge, versus just 1% of the general population, and 20 MPs attended Eton. In 2016, there are only 10 women in the 30-person cabinet. This raises questions about how well positioned the House of Commons is to understand the needs and concerns of the public it represents.
However: The House of Commons has become more descriptively representative
- In 2015, a record number of female MPs were elected, as well as 41 ethnic minority MPs. The average age of MPs remained consistent at 50 years old. There was also a slight decrease in the number of MPs who attended fee-paying schools. As such, the current Parliament is the most diverse in British history.
Evaluate the extent to which Select Committees play a limited role within Parliament
Not limited role:
- Evidence based analysis, well respected, especially in airing issues of public interest
- Hearings televised and reported in media, increasing influence
- Scope has widened to include scrutiny of legislation
- Long serving members accumulate knowledge of particular policy areas
- Direct influence on govt policy
Limited role:
- Majority of SC members drawn from governing party, and MPs from govt side chair influential Treasury/foreign affairs/defence committee
- Limited range of topics explored in depth
- High turnover rate for membership
- Govt only accepts some of the recommendations, rarely for major policy changes
- Power to summon witnesses can be blocked
- Inefficient overlap of committees leading to duplication and contradiction
Evaluate the extent to which the opposition plays a significant role within Parliament
‘Select Committees are the most important scrutinisers of the executive’ - how far do you agree?
Important:
- Govt majority enables legislation to be pushed through e.g. on those 20 days
- Short money provision reduced, limiting role it can play
- May make little real impression on general public because of defeat in election
Unimportant:
- SC not so important (see reasons above for SC play ltd. role)
- HoL is (see reasons in House of Lords has gained increasing importance essay e.g. impartiality, whilst often SC chairs are from main party)
- Backbenchers are (see reasons in backbenchers essay e.g. rise in rebellions)
- Opposition is (see opposition essay e.g. media influence)
- PMQ’s is (see below, e.g. widely publicised, catch PM out)
‘Parliament is now more able in recent years to effectively scrutinise the executive’ - how far do you agree?
Effective:
- through Select Committees, growing power (Wright reforms, increasing no. of reports and being televised)
- through opposition (Current govt minority giving lots of power)
- through backbenchers, growing power (more rebellions/ urgent q’s/ influence)
- through HoL, growing influence (increased aggression)
- through PMQ’s, increased media usage of population (see essay)
Not effective:
- through Select Committees, still limited (govt accepts few proposals, and minor ones)
- through opposition (Short money/ Policy Dev. Grant reduction)
- through backbenchers, still limited (don’t have to be listened to, patronage/whips)
- through HoL, still limited (unelected, drops case after making point)
- through PMQ’s, ineffective (rowdy atmosphere etc.)
