Parliamentary Scrutiny Flashcards
what is the debate over parliamentary scrutiny?
Parliament consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and one of its key roles is to provide a check on the Westminster executive by scrutinising through debates, questioning ministers and conducting work in select committees
however, the extent to which Parliament provides a genuinely effective check on the executive is widely debated
arguments to suggest that parliament is an effective check on the Westminster executive
Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs)
select committees
House of Lords
arguments to suggest that parliament is NOT an effective check on the Westminster executive
the executive dominates these select committees
the Lords are often highly limited in their ability to scrutinise
PMQs rarely achieve proper scrutiny
conclusion
on the whole, while there are limits to the checks being provided by Parliament they are still very effective and without them, the executive would indeed hold too much power
select committees: what are SCs and why are they effective in scrutinising the executive?
the most significant way in which both the House of Commons and the House of Lords are an effective check on the Westminster executive is through their work on select committees
select committees usually consist of 11 members with a chair elected by the rest of the House and their role is to scrutinise departments of government and examine details of expenditure, administration and policy, thus being crucial in holding the government to account and being an effective check
such committees are a very effective force because they focus heavily on improving the work of the government by questioning ministers and forcing them to explain their actions which helps in holding the government accountable
such accountability would otherwise be escaped without select committees seeing as general elections are held every 5 years
despite the limits of select committees, they still play a very important role in holding the government to account which suggests they are a very effective check as the scrutiny they do could not be done at the same level anywhere else
select committees: SCs are far less party political
select committees are far less party political as they work across all parties and focus more on improving the work of government rather than acting for their own gain
this freedom is emphasised further by the fact that following the Wright Reforms, chairs are elected by the whole House instead of being appointed by party whips
in other words, they are more legitimate and less restricted by whips which allows them to act more effectively in examining and checking the work of the executive in great depth and detail
select committees: can devote weeks to debating and investigating an issue
they can also devote weeks to debating and investigating an issue
for example, in 2018 the International Development Committee has been responsible for scrutinising and examining Oxfam in depth that would not have been able to be achieved in regular parliamentary debates as they cannot dedicate this much time to an issue, which just goes to show how effective select committees can be
select committees: how are select committees not an effective check on the executive?
(the executive has a majority in SCs)
the government of the day usually holds a majority in these committees due to the electoral system of first past the post that tends to produce a strong government with a clear majority
the existence of this majority can restrict the committee’s effectiveness because those MPs and peers belonging to the governing party are expected to support their party instead of criticising it which makes it difficult to properly scrutinise and place checks on the government
select committees: how are select committees not an effective check on the executive?
(lack of enforcement powers)
select committees hold no enforcement powers which means that they cannot compel the government to follow their recommendations or force them to take any action
while it’s true that 40% of committee recommendations are accepted, these rarely involve major changes to policy, which raises questions of the effectiveness of Parliament as a check on the Westminster executive
house of lords: how is the house of lords an effective check on the executive?
(the party whip is considerably weaker in the house of lords)
the House of Lords, in particular, can be said to be a very effective check on the executive because the party whip is considerably weaker and less influential, meaning that they are freer from party control and can focus more on being an effective check on the executive
this is because once a Lord is appointed they hold that position for life and do not need to stand for re-election every 5 years
in other words, they are not under as much pressure to obey the party whip and align with their party because their careers are not on the line and do not depend on obedience
therefore, the Lords can operate more freely and be an effective check without fear of the consequences on their careers, which could explain why the Labour government from 1999-2010 suffered more than 450 defeats in the Lords
house of lords: how is the house of lords an effective check on the executive?
(the house of lords is becoming more assertive and willing to challenge the executive)
the upper house is also becoming more independent and willing to oppose the government which could be because of the Blair reforms, including the removal of hereditary peers in 1999 which has made them more legitimate and democratic so as a result, they feel more confident in scrutinising the government
for example, in 2015, the Lords voted to delay planned cuts to tax credits and compensate those affected which raised a constitutional issue because tax credits are a financial issue that the Lords should not be involved in as the Commons has financial privilege over them
however, the Lords still voted to delay and as a result the government decided to review the cuts and listen to the concerns of the Lords, which illustrates just how effective the House of Lords can be as a check on the executive
the house of lords: how is the house of lords not an effective check on the executive?
(undemocratic so tend to back down)
the House of Lords tends to back down as they are not democratically legitimate and want to avoid conflict with the elected government, which could be said to invalidate the argument that they are always an effective check on the executive
this was seen in 2017 when after detailed scrutiny, they voted on amendments to the EU bill that had been previously voted down in the Commons regarding residency rights of EU citizens in the UK and a pledge to ensure that Parliament has a vote on the final Brexit deal
however, the Lords eventually backed down and the bill was passed without the amendments as many Lords felt that they did not have the right to pressure the government in such a way, which demonstrates limits on their powers to be an effective check
the house of lords: how is the house of lords not an effective check on the executive?
(limits on the powers of the lords)
other limits on the Lords’ ability to check the executive include the Salisbury Convention, which states that the Lords cannot oppose policies included in the government’s manifesto as that government has mandate to implement those policies following the win of the general election
moreover, the government can usually use its majority to overturn critical Lords amendments and if the upper house maintains its opposition then the government can use the Parliament Act to force a bill through
this was used three times by Blair, including in 2004 in regard to banning hunting with dogs
these limitations prevent the House of Lords from being an effective check which may limit Parliament’s ability to be an effective check as a whole
PMQs: how are PMQs an effective check on the executive?
what are the purpose of PMQs?
a reason why Parliament can be said to be an effective check on the executive is through their work during PMQs
this time for questioning provides essential scrutiny of the government, which is essential to democracy as it acts to hold the government accountable
it ensures that the Prime Minister is forced to explain their decisions and is held accountable on a wide range of topics
PMQs: how are PMQs an effective check on the executive?
they are dreaded, can act as a deterrent
the fact that PMQs are often dreaded goes to show their effectiveness
they can act as a deterrent and make the government consider their actions more deeply as they know they will be asked about them
for example, Blair described them as “the most nerve racking experience” in his political life — as a result, they are intensively prepared for, showing that they are a significant event
essentially, PMQs are vital in highlighting and bringing awareness to key issues, forcing the executive to engage in a variety of topics and raising even more awareness in the public as it is televised and reported on
