Parliament & Executive Relations Flashcards
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: Minister’s questions
In Parliament, MPs and House of Lords Peers pose questions to government ministers. Ministerial Questions sessions occur daily for one hour, during which ministers respond to backbenchers’ inquiries regarding their department. These sessions create pressure on ministers to be well-versed in all aspects of their department’s work.
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: PMQ’s
Prime Minister’s Question Time (PMQs) happens every Wednesday for 30 minutes, during which MPs question the Prime Minister on significant matters. The leader of the opposition begins by asking six questions, followed by inquiries from other MPs on government affairs.
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: PMQ’s benefits
PMQs offer a platform for MPs to directly question the Prime Minister, holding them accountable for government actions. The PM must be extensively briefed on public interest issues as questions are not provided in advance.
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: PMQ’s criticisms ‘punch and judy’
PMQs is criticized for prioritizing political point-scoring over effective scrutiny of the Prime Minister and government. It’s often labeled as ‘Punch and Judy’ politics due to its confrontational nature, with Speaker John Bercow describing it as a “shouting match every Wednesday lunchtime.”
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: PMQ’s criticisms ‘questions’
Government MPs sometimes ask planted questions to make the government and Prime Minister look strong. PM David Cameron’s aides even sent emails to Conservative MPs suggesting questions, including ones praising the government’s economic policies.
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: Select Comittees
Departmental Select Committees scrutinize government department work and ministers in detail, employing longer questioning formats than question time. For instance, Nick Hurd, the Home Office Minister, faced scrutiny from the Housing, Communities, and Local Government Committee regarding support for those impacted by the Grenfell Tower fire.
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: Benefits of select committees
Select committees provide close scrutiny of individual government departments and publish reports on various issues. The government must respond to these reports within 60 days. For example, the government responded to a report from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Education committees calling for apprenticeship reforms.
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: Criticisms of select comittees
Select committee scrutiny may falter in holding the government accountable when ministers are uncooperative in providing evidence. In 2016, Boris Johnson, then the Foreign Secretary, was criticized by the chair of the foreign affairs select committee for “waffling” during questioning.
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: voting and backbench rebellions
Backbenchers in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords can control the executive by voting against government-backed bills. In the House of Commons, backbench rebellions occur when MPs from the governing party vote against their party’s legislation, preventing the executive from introducing certain laws
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: voting effective
The House of Commons has blocked government legislation through successful backbench rebellions, such as when 12 Conservative MPs joined others to vote 309-305 for giving Parliament a vote on the final Brexit deal. The House of Lords also influences government policies by voting against legislation, defeating the government 38 times from 2016-2017.
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: voting ineffective
Voting against the government is less effective with a large parliamentary majority. Backbench rebellions are difficult under three-line whips, as defying MPs risk expulsion from their party and must sit as independents. The House of Lords can only delay legislation and propose amendments, but cannot stop it; the government can veto any delays.
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: votes of confidence
A vote of no confidence can be initiated by the opposition in the House of Commons, where MPs vote on their confidence in the government. The Prime Minister can also call a confidence vote to restore authority if their MPs oppose the government on a key issue. If the government loses a confidence vote, it conventionally resigns.
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: votes of confidence effective
Votes of confidence have successfully removed governments from power, such as when PM James Callaghan lost in 1979, leading to his resignation and subsequent election defeat. They can also restore government authority, as seen in 1993 when John Major called a vote of confidence to address opposition to his support for the Maastricht Treaty.
Parliament Holding Executive to Account: votes of confidence ineffective
Votes of no confidence are unlikely to succeed if the government has a majority of MPs in the House of Commons who would not vote to remove their own party’s government from power.
Executive Dominance Over Parliament - Elective dictatorship
An elective dictatorship is where the executive dominates the legislature.
This is mainly when the executive has a large majority in parliament, and was a term used by Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor in 1976.
Executive Dominance Over Parliament - control over legislation
The government uses party whips to ensure backbenchers vote in favor of its bills in the House of Commons. It also controls Parliament’s timetable, deciding which legislation is debated and voted on.
Executive Dominance Over Parliament - parliamentary sovereignty
Parliament has legislative sovereignty, allowing it to pass laws ultimately. With a majority in the House of Commons, the government can pass most bills into law. The House of Commons holds more power than the House of Lords, which cannot completely block legislation.
Executive Dominance Over Parliament - not effective dominance
If there is a small majority or a minority government then executive bills can be stopped from passing through parliament.
Balance of Power: select comittees
The 2009 Wright Committee reforms enhanced select committees’ power by reducing their number and allowing MPs to vote for select committee chairs. These reforms also established the Backbench Business Committee, which schedules debates in the House of Commons on topics proposed by MPs rather than the government.
Balance of Power: military action
The government has increasingly sought Parliament’s approval for military action through debates and votes in the House of Commons. In 2013, Parliament voted against military action in Syria, but approved actions in Iraq in 2014 and Syria in 2015. However, in 2018, PM Theresa May ordered airstrikes in Syria without consulting Parliament first.
Balance of Power: HoL voting
The House of Lords, where the government does not have a majority, have often delayed government bills from passing.
In 2017 the government was defeated in the House of Lords over its bill to enable people in apprenticeships and under the age of 20 to qualify for child benefits.
Balance of Power: government dominance
The government is rarely defeated in parliamentary votes, often passing legislation due to its majority and the use of parliamentary whips. It benefits from a ‘payroll vote’ of MPs in executive roles who consistently support government policies. For example, Tony Blair’s majority government was only defeated four times in 10 years.
