Structure And Role Of Parliamnet Flashcards
What are the key structures of parliament?
- The UK Parliament is bicameral, therefore made up of 2 chambers: the House of Commons, elected chamber, and the House of Lords, unelected chamber.
- The House of Commons comprises 650 MPs directly elected at least every five years. The Commons is the dominant house as the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts severely limited the powers of the Lords.
- The House of Lords contains around 800 members. Most are life peers, although 92 hereditary peers remain. There are also 26 senior Church of England bishops.
- Parliament also contains the executive, i.e. all government ministers including the prime minister are either MPs (most) or peers. There is no separation of powers as in the USA.
The Commons key facts:
- The Commons comprises 650 members of parliament (MPs), who are directly elected by single-member constituencies using the first-past-the-post electoral system. Plans were drawn up in 2010 to reduce the number of MPs to 600 after the infamous MPs’ expenses scandal but these have yet to be implemented.
- Each MP represents an average of 68,000 voters. Despite the independent Boundary Commissions efforts, some significant differences remain in constituency size. The most populated seat in the 2019 election was the Isle of Wight with an electorate of 113,000, while Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Western Isles) in Scotland had just over 21,000 voters.
- Nearly all MPs are members of a political party, although a handful of independents have been elected over the years, including the health campaigner Dr Richard Taylor, who represented Wyre Forest from 2001 to 2010 for the Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern party. In Northern Ireland, Lady Sylvia Hermon sat as an Independent Unionist MP from 2010 until her retirement in 2019. In the 2019 election, a handful of independents made strong showings, including Claire Wright in East Devon, though none managed to win a seat. Overall, the Commons is dominated by party politics, which has important implications for the scrutiny of government.
The Lords key facts:
- The House of Lords consists mostly of unelected members and lacks any democratic mandate, which is correspondingly reflected in its lack of powers.
- The size of its membership varies over time as there is no number fixed in law, but in 2021 it comprised around 800 peers.
- Since the 1999 Blair reforms, the Lords have consisted of:
- Life peers: those who are appointed to a peerage for their lifetime only. This was made possible by the Life Peerages Act 1958. Before then, the Lords comprised just hereditary peers, bishops and the Law Lords. Law lords ended in 2009 with the creation of a separate Supreme Court. Most peers in the Lords today are life peers, often nominated by the leaders of political parties.
- 92 hereditary peers (prior to the 1999 reforms, there were around 700 sitting in the Lords): chosen from among the wider number of hereditary peers, so when a vacancy occurs among this group through death or resignation, the ensuing ‘election’ has a very small and select electorate. The only elected component is the hereditary part. Life and hereditary peers are known as the Lords temporal.
- 26 Church of England bishops: selected mostly on the basis of seniority, although the bishops of five dioceses (Canterbury, Durham, London, Winchester and York) automatically get a seat. Collectively, they are known as the Lords spiritual.
- In contrast to the Commons, a large number of independents (often known as crossbenchers) sit in the Lords. No one party since 1999 has enjoyed a majority
What are the trends and developments in parliament since the 19th century?
- Parliament, and not the monarchy or military, is where laws are made, policy is debated and the government is brought to account and scrutinised.
- In the UK system, the government is also part of the legislature (unlike the US system, which has a separation of powers).
- All ministers by convention must also be in parliament either as MPs (most) or peers in the House of Lords.
- Although parliament itself has been around for centuries, it has remained neither static nor unchanging:
- Democracy: parliament’s membership was increasingly chosen by all of the people as the UK moved towards a parliamentary democracy. This process was achieved via a number of parliamentary reform Acts, culminating in 1928 when full female suffrage was achieved.
- Balance of power: the balance of power between the two chambers, shifted considerably in the twentieth century to the extent that real political power now lies only with the Commons. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 brought about this change.
- Diversity: the growth of democracy has made membership of the Commons increasingly diverse. The first female MP, Nancy Astor, took her seat in 1919, whereas the December 2019 election returned a record 220 women MPs. Racial diversity has also increased in modern times even if ethnic minorities remain proportionally underrepresented in Parliament.
In 1987, just three black MPs were elected, but there has since been a growing number of elected representatives from BAME communities, including the first Chinese MP in 2010 and the first South Asian woman MP, also in 2010. Following the 2019 election, 65 MPs were BAME. There has also been an increase in LGBTQ+ elected representatives and people with disabilities. - Checks and balances: there has been a growing trend towards centralised control and discipline via the political parties, with less scope for independent voting and policy-making. This has meant that the governing party has been able to dominate parliament with the resultant reduced scope for scrutiny and checks on the executive. However, in more recent times backbench MPs have become increasingly rebellious — recent prime ministers have been confronted by and sometimes constrained by significant revolts from their own MPs. For example, Theresa May 2016 to 2019 was unable to get her Brexit deal through parliament.
• Committees: increased use of committees as a forum for discussion and debate instead of the main chambers. This development makes the often very heated and adversarial atmosphere of the Commons, for increase during PMQ’s, more calmer, considerably less lively and entertaining, although arguably more eftective. - Broadcasting: parliament has been televised since 1989, which has arguably raised its profile and enabled the electorate to become more familiar with its procedures, personalities and tone. Effective parliamentary debaters as well as less distinguished contributions are available for all to see.
- Devolution and EU membership: the advent of devolution (in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and EU membership (until 2020) has meant that many policies and laws have been decided outside Westminster, for example in Edinburgh or Brussels. This was particularly true for those areas in which the EU held sway, such as trade and agriculture.
Yet despite these developments, parliament retains many ancient, quaint (some might say outdated) traditions. Formality and ritual still play a large part in Westminster, the ‘mother of all parliaments. For example, a)MPs do not vote electronically but file into the division lobby and then walk through two doors, the Ayes and Noes, and are manually counted. b)The government and opposition sit facing each other, traditionally separated by a distance calculated as two sword lengths apart (3.96 metres). c)They may not cross these lines during sittings. d)Finally, the speaker starts each day of parliamentary business with a short, formal procession preceded by a gold mace (staff) and accompanied by the chaplain.
What are the key positions in Parliament?
- The prime minister: most important person in parliament. As leader of the largest single party, they nearly always command an overall majority in the Commons (although the periods 2010–15 and 2017–19 were something of an exception), and therefore can command and control most of the business and outcomes of the Commons. Although in theory parliament is meant to scrutinise and check the government, in reality a prime minister with a large majority can normally rely on getting the House of Commons to vote the way he or she wants. This is because the executive (government) dominates the legislature.
- The speaker: try to keep order and ensure as many MPs as possible from across the range of parties are allowed to speak in debates. They also administer the rules of the House of Commons and can suspend MPs who break these rules for varying periods of time. Among the rules is a ban on calling a fellow MP a liar, or insinuating that they are lying or corrupt.
- For example, then-speaker John Bercow suspended veteran Labour MP Dennis Skinner for calling then prime minister David Cameron ‘Dodgy Dave’, and subsequently refusing to retract or apologise for his comments.
- The speaker is voted for by their fellow MPs in a series of ballots. By tradition, the speaker renounces any party allegiance on taking up the post, to ensure impartiality. At election time, traditionally the major political parties do not oppose them and they stand as ‘The speaker seeking reelection’. In recent years, however, the post has become more controversial. Michael Martin, speaker from 2000 to 2009, was effectively forced to resign due to the expenses scandal and growing dissatisfaction over his performance in the post. His successor, John Bercow, also faced growing criticism, especially from the government benches, over his alleged favouritism towards opposition MPs and his perceived lack of cooperation on progression of the Brexit bill following the 2016 referendum. He was also accused of bullying by some members of his own staff including his former private secretary Kate Emms, who worked for him between 2010 and 2011 — claims he strongly denied. - Leader of the House of Commons: cabinet-level post, held by Jacob Rees-Mogg following the 2019 election, is essentially that of the government’s business manager. It is their job to see that from the executive’s perspective the Commons runs smoothly, and that its bills are properly timetabled. For example, on Thursdays the leader of the house tells the Commons about the business scheduled for the following week and usually provisional business for the week after that. Their job also involves close liaison with the government’s chief whip.
- Essentially, whips are in charge of party discipline and ensuring that MPs stay loyal and vote the way their leaders dictate. Although TV political dramas often portray whips playground bully’s issuing threats to wavering MPs, the reality is a lot of their time is spent using rather more gentle persuasive techniques and explaining the reasoning behind the prime minister’s stance.
- There are also junior whips, as well as whips in the opposition parties. Each week, whips issue a set of instructions on how their party’s MPs should vote. A ‘three-line whip’ indicates the party leadership expects all its MPs to turn up and vote a certain way.
- The whip may be withdrawn from an MP, meaning that the MP is suspended from the party. This is usually a temporary sanction and is much more likely a response to the MP/s in question bringing the party into disrepute as opposed to defying the whip in a particular vote. This was the case in 2012 when Conservative MP Nadine Dorries appeared on the TV reality show I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here! without first informing the party leadership or the whips of her participation, and thereby being absent from the Commons for several weeks. The whip was later restored to Dorries and she later went on to join the government benches.
- On rarer occasions, the whip can be withdrawn for political disloyalty. This was the case in September 2019, when Boris Johnson removed the whip from 21 Tory rebels who defied the whips’ instructions not to support a motion to take control of parliamentary business from the government during the Brexit bill saga. Ten MPs subsequently had the whip restored and five of the remainder decided to stand as independents or Liberal Democrats in the subsequent general election, although all lost their seats.
A more unusual reason for the removal of the whip took place in July 2020. Conservative MP Julian Lewis had been elected as chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee by securing the support of opposition MPs. In doing so, he defeated fellow Tory MP Chris Grayling, the government’s preferred candidate. A government source accused Lewis of ‘working with Labour and other opposition MPs for his own advantage’. Clearly collaborating with the political enemy can be seen, on occasion, as a serious crime in politics. - Frontbenchers is applied to members of the governing party/parties who are also ministers in the government. It also applies to opposition MPs who are shadow ministers. The term derives from the fact that these members sit on the front rows in the Commons chamber.
- Backbenchers are the ordinary MPs who are neither ministers nor shadow ministers. Some are loyal followers of the party, especially those who are hoping for promotion to the frontbenches. But it also here that the more independently minded MPs can be found. Several MPs have spent many years criticising and on occasion voting against their own party leadership from the backbenches. During his time as a backbencher, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn rebelled frequently against the Labour government and its Blair/Brown leadership, making him the most rebellious Labour backbencher between 1997 and 2010.
The main functions of parliament
- Legislative: parliament is where laws are introduced, debated and passed.
- Representative: parliament represents people, geographically through constituencies and in terms of political ideas through parties.
- Scrutiny: parliament has the vital role of checking and scrutinising the government by questioning its actions and poring over its legislative plans.
- Deliberative: parliament has an important role as a forum for debate and discussion. In times of national crisis, whether during wars or during political dramas such as Brexit, all eyes turn to Westminster and its debates, speeches and decisions.
The question to consider is how well parliament performs each of these functions.
The legislative process:
Key role of parliament is to pass legislation.
Vast majority of laws passed are public bills and especially government-backed bills. For example, in the two sessions of the 2015–17 parliament, 55 government bills were debated of which 48 were passed. By contrast in the same period, 324 private members’ bills were introduced (bills that are presented by individual MPs or peers) of which just 14 were passed.
Public bill: Bill that applies to everyone once it becomes law. This applies to most legislation. A small number of bills passed fall into the special category of private bills, which only apply to specific groups of people or public bodies, usually local authorities. One recent example is the Middle Level Act 2018, which regulated navigation in part of the East Anglia Fens.
A bill becomes law via the following basic process:
1. All proposed laws (bills) must pass through both the Lords and the Commons.
2. All bills go through certain set stages in order to be passed. The length and opportunities for debate and scrutiny vary depending on the stage.
3. Every public bill is debated and can be amended.
4. Most government-backed bills become law. By contrast, most bills proposed by backbench MPs or peers do not.
5. Every bill must receive the royal assent to become law, but today this is only a formality.
How the legislative process works:
- Government may first produce a discussion document called a Green Paper, (govt sets out issues and option for legislation, a discussion document)One recent example was a Green Paper on adult social care published in September 2019. The government may then go on to produce a White Paper, (govt document setting out plans and proposal for legislation).
- Pre-legislative scrutiny has increased in recent years and draft bills are sometimes published that are scrutinised by a select committee or a joint committee before they are formally introduced to parliament. For example, before Parliament debated the Tenant Fees Bill, a select committee investigated it in November 2017. During the 2017–19 session, ten draft bills went through this same process.
- First reading: formal introduction or reading of the bill’s title by the relevant government minister. There is no vote or debate at this stage.
- Second reading: main debate on the principles of the bill takes place in the Commons chamber. Government defeats at the second reading stage are very rare, the last time being in 1986 when a Sunday Trading Bill was defeated 296-282.
- Committee stage: bills are then sent on to public bill committees (known as standing committees before 2006), the members consider the bill line by line, often suggesting amendments and sometimes calling expert witness to help inform debate. As the government always has a majority on the committee, major changes to bills are unlikely at this stage. Each committee lasts only for the lifetime of the bill it is considering. Although members are appointed by party whips, a 2015 report by Democratic Audit found that nearly two-thirds (63%) of all MPs appointed to bill committees between 2000 and 2010 brought some form of relevant experience or expertise. Furthermore, 87% of amendments accepted by the government came from these specialised MPs. To put things in perspective, though, in the period 2000–10 only 0.5% of non-government amendments in committee succeeded.
- Report stage: during this stage any amendments agreed in the committee stage are considered by the Commons, and accepted, rejected or changed. There is also the opportunity for further amendments to be put to the vote.
- Third reading: this is a final debate on the amended version of the bill. No further changes are permitted at this stage.
- The House of Lords stages: assuming the bill has got through all its Commons stages, the process is then repeated in the Lords. Any amendments made by the upper house only become part of the bill if they are accepted by the Commons. A bill may go back and forth between the two houses, a process often dubbed ‘parliamentary ping-pong. For example, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was considered five times by the Lords and four times by the Commons over a 30-hour period until a compromise was reached. Note that if agreement is not forthcoming, the Commons can invoke the Parliament Act, which means their version of the bill becomes law within a year. This was last used to pass the Hunting Act 2004, which banned the hunting of wild mammals with dogs.
What is one of the most protracted issue parliament has had to legislate and why?
One of the most protracted issues parliament has had to legislate on recently has been the Brexit process.
- While on the surface it might have appeared straightforward just to repeal the previous Acts that had bound the country ever closer to the EU, the reality was rather different. The whole saga that involved the Commons and the three separate bills to ‘Get Brexit done’ (or not) between 2018 and 2020 was one of the most confusing, complex yet important examples of the Commons as both a legislative and scrutinising chamber.
- Due both to Theresa May and then Boris Johnson (until the December 2019 election) having no overall Commons majority, and the deep divisions and high emotions over Brexit, especially within the Conservative Party, the path to legislative success was far from usual or straightforward by Westminster standards (see case study).
CASE STUDY
Brexit bills and the Commons (an abridged and somewhat simplified account)
The government’s Brexit troubles began in 2017 when hedge fund manager Gina Miller won a Supreme Court case that forced Theresa May’s government to seek parliamentary approval before triggering Article 50—the formal process of leaving the EU. This was a major setback for the government, which had hoped to handle Brexit negotiations on its own, avoiding long parliamentary debates and votes.
To prepare for Brexit, May’s government introduced the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which she called the ‘Great Repeal Bill’. This legislation repealed the European Communities Act 1972, meaning EU laws would no longer automatically apply in the UK. However, during the bill’s passage through Parliament, MPs inserted a crucial amendment—the ‘meaningful vote’ clause. This guaranteed that Parliament would have the final say on the Brexit deal, limiting the government’s control over the process.
The focus then shifted to what kind of Brexit deal the UK would secure and what would happen if no deal was agreed with the EU. The official departure date was set for the end of March 2019, but by early 2019, the government faced severe difficulties. Between January and March, Theresa May’s Brexit deal was rejected three times by Parliament. The first defeat was by a record-breaking 432-202 votes, the largest government defeat in modern British history. Even after making changes, her deal was rejected again in March, this time by 391-242 votes. The third vote on 29 March also failed, with a 344-286 result.
With no deal agreed and the deadline approaching, the UK risked ‘crashing out’ of the EU without a deal on 12 April. Parliament, unwilling to let this happen, took control of the Brexit process. MPs passed the Cooper-Letwin Act by just one vote, forcing the government to request an extension from the EU. The EU granted this extension, moving the Brexit deadline to 31 October 2019.
By this point, May’s leadership was collapsing, and in June 2019, she resigned as Prime Minister. She was replaced in July by Boris Johnson, who promised to take a tougher approach to Brexit. He managed to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement with the EU, but before he could push it through Parliament, he ran into a new obstacle. In early September, MPs passed the Benn Act, which required the Prime Minister to seek yet another Brexit extension if Parliament did not approve a deal by 19 October. Johnson fiercely opposed this law, declaring he would rather be ‘dead in a ditch’ than ask for another delay. He even attempted to prorogue (suspend) Parliament for five weeks, but in September 2019, the Supreme Court ruled this illegal.
On 19 October, Parliament met for a special Saturday sitting to debate Johnson’s revised Brexit deal. He had hoped for a straightforward deal or no-deal vote, but instead, MPs passed the Letwin Amendment, which delayed approval of his deal until the full withdrawal bill had been passed. This activated the Benn Act, forcing Johnson to request yet another extension. The EU granted it, setting 31 January 2020 as the new Brexit deadline.
With Parliament blocking his every move, Johnson decided the only way forward was a general election. Normally, under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, he would have needed two-thirds of MPs to agree, but Parliament had repeatedly refused. To get around this, the government passed the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019, allowing an election to take place on 12 December 2019. Johnson’s Conservative Party won a decisive majority, giving him the power to pass his Brexit deal without opposition.
With his victory secured, Johnson pushed through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which passed with a majority of 99 votes. No Conservative MPs opposed it, and no amendments were passed in the Commons. The bill received only 11 days of parliamentary scrutiny, a stark contrast to the years of debate that had previously stalled Brexit. By 23 January 2020, Brexit was officially completed, and Johnson’s government removed provisions for Parliament to oversee future Brexit negotiations.
In the end, Brexit was only resolved when Johnson outmaneuvered Parliament by calling an election, winning a strong majority, and pushing through his deal with minimal opposition.
EVEL legislative process:
Although the passage of most bills follows the legislative process, there is one slight difference in the legislative steps for bills that are purely to do with English affairs. English votes for English laws (EVEL, as it is commonly known) was introduced in 2015 mainly to deal with the consequences of devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
- In EVEL, after the second reading, the bill goes through a special “consideration stage”, where only English (or English and Welsh) MPs decide if it should continue. If they approve, the bill then moves to the usual stages where all MPs, including those from Scotland and Northern Ireland, can vote.
CASE STUDY:
- The aim of English votes for English laws (EVEL) is to ensure that English MPs can veto bills or parts of bills that only apply to England.
- First, the speaker decides whether or not a bill or clauses of it are valid for the EVEL procedure. If so, it is given a speaker’s certificate.
-After the report stage, the speaker can decide to refer the bill to the Legislative Grand Committee if it has been amended.
- All MPs can take part in debates in the Legislative Grand Committee, but only those MPs representing constituencies in England, or Wales, can vote or move amendments.
- The bill must then be reconsidered by the whole house. If the Legislative Grand Committee again withholds consent, the whole bill falls, or any disputed clauses are removed.
- Essentially, it means that bills only affecting England must be passed by a majority of both all MPs and English MPs, often known as the ‘double veto’ system.
In the first year of operation, nine bills were certified as requiring the EVEL procedure either in whole or in part. In none of the 14 votes held under the terms of EVEL was the government defeated. The main critics have largely been SNP MPs. For example, in February 2020, they protested against being barred from voting on an EVELcertified NHS funding bill, claiming that the bill also affected Scotland.
Brexit case study political takeaways.
Parliament as an Effective Check on the Executive
1. Forcing Parliamentary Approval on Brexit – Gina Miller’s Supreme Court victory in 2017 ensured that the government could not trigger Article 50 without Parliament’s approval, preventing the executive from bypassing democratic scrutiny.
2. Insertion of the ‘Meaningful Vote’ Clause – MPs successfully amended the European Union (Withdrawal) Act to guarantee that Parliament would have the final say on the Brexit deal, limiting government control.
3. Repeated Rejection of May’s Deal – Between January and March 2019, the Commons rejected Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement three times, demonstrating its ability to block an executive policy it did not support.
4. Taking Control of Brexit Process – In April 2019, backbenchers passed the Cooper-Letwin Act, forcing the government to request an extension to prevent a no-deal Brexit, showing Parliament could impose its will on the executive.
5. The Benn Act (2019) – This law, passed against Boris Johnson’s wishes, legally required the Prime Minister to seek another Brexit extension if no deal was passed by 19 October, proving Parliament could limit the government’s power.
6. Blocking Prorogation – Johnson’s attempt to suspend Parliament for five weeks was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the idea that executive overreach would not go unchecked.
7. Preventing a Snap Election – Parliament initially refused Johnson’s calls for a general election, demonstrating that the executive could not dissolve Parliament simply to change its composition.
Parliament as an Ineffective Check on the Executive
1. Government Still Controlled the Process – Despite various parliamentary interventions, Brexit ultimately proceeded on the government’s terms, suggesting Parliament delayed rather than stopped executive action.
2. Failure to Agree on an Alternative – While MPs successfully blocked May’s deal and a no-deal Brexit, they failed to unite behind any alternative plan, making parliamentary opposition ineffective in providing a clear solution.
3. Johnson’s Workaround for an Election – Parliament initially blocked a snap election, but Johnson bypassed this by passing the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019, which sidestepped the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
4. Weakening of Parliamentary Scrutiny in 2020 – Johnson’s strong majority after the election allowed him to pass the Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020 with minimal scrutiny, reversing previous parliamentary gains.
5. Limited Time for Oversight – Despite years of debate, Johnson’s Brexit bill was passed in just 11 days, with no amendments accepted in the Commons and Lords defeats swiftly overturned.
6. Failure to Enforce the Benn Act – While the Act required Johnson to request an extension, it did not prevent him from campaigning on a promise to deliver Brexit quickly, which ultimately strengthened his position.
7. Consolidation of Executive Power – After winning the 2019 election, Johnson removed provisions for parliamentary oversight of future Brexit negotiations, further diminishing Parliament’s influence.
In summary, while Parliament effectively constrained the government at key moments, its failure to present a unified alternative and Johnson’s ability to regain control suggest that its role as a check on the executive was ultimately limited.
The Gina Miller case is a good example of the courts’ involvement in constitutional matters and checking the power of the executive. The Supreme Court argued it was making a legal not political decision and upholding the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. As Gina Miller said herself after the verdict: ‘Only parliament can grant rights to the British people and only parliament can take them away…No prime minister, no government, can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged…parliament alone is sovereign.’
Secondary legislation:
Many laws (besides primary legislation) are derived from what is termed secondary legislation, or statutory instruments (SIs).
This refers to provisions within primary legislation for the relevant minister to introduce new clauses or changes.
- This is mainly for the sake of efficiency and is minister-made law, not parliament-passed law.
For example, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 allows the government to more easily add new drugs to the list of banned substances as information about their harm becomes apparent. Around 3,500 SIs are passed annually, far in excess of the number of parliamentary Acts.
- SIs are scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is a joint committee of both MPs and peers. One of the few committees in which the government does not enjoy a majority.
- The committee, newly appointed at the start of 2020, comprises only six Conservatives out of a total membership of 14. The role of this committee is purely to scrutinise the SI to ensure it is legal and does not go beyond the powers specified in the parent Act.
- Parliament must be asked for approval of all SIs but cannot amend them.
Overall, scrutiny of secondary legislation is considerably less than for primary legislation.
Backbench MPs and Legislation:
Ordinary MPs can often feel like they’re only there to support (or oppose) bills drafted by the frontbench.
There are, however, some opportunities for backbenchers to influence legislation beyond voting in the division lobby.
- MPs (and also peers) can and do draft and present their own bills, some of which make it into law. They do this through the use of private members’ bills (PMBs).
- PMBs began in the late 1940s and enshrined the notion that some parliamentary time should be made available for legislation by individual MPs and peers, providing backbenchers with some freedom to respond to public concern or to reflect their own policy concerns.
- This is especially true for issues that are not primarily party political, or indeed where an MP’s own party is divided, making it difficult for the leadership to present a united front.
- While not a way usually of checking or scrutinising the government, PMBs nonetheless allow individual MPs to influence parliament and indeed the nation.
A number of key laws started as PMBs, including the Abortion Act 1967 and the abolition of capital punishment in 1965.
PMBs are distinguished largely in terms of when and how they are introduced and can take one of three forms:
• Ballot bills
• Ten minute rule bills
• Presentation bills
Ballot bills:
Any MP is permitted to introduce a bill of their choice, having given prior notice to the Public Bill Office.
- Presentation bills are formally ‘presented’ during a Friday sitting only, and only after all the ballot bills on the order paper have been presented.
- The MP presenting the bill does not give a speech and there is no debate on the proposals.
- Presentation bills can be used to address discrete, non-controversial policy issues and to resolve anomalies in the law. - However, with no speech or debate attached to them, they are less useful to MPs than ballot or Ten minute rule bills. -
However, the Brexit saga once again broke the rules in this regard. Both the Cooper–Letwin and Benn Acts referred to in the case study on page 37 were implemented by this device essentially because MPs took control of parliament’s agenda from the government in order to prevent a no-deal Brexit. In conclusion, there are clear opportunities for MPs to propose and, less frequently, to pass legislation but these depend on the following factors:
1. Being uncontroversial.
2. Getting lucky in being one of the 20 MPs successful in the ballot bills draw.
3. Having government backing.
4. Exceptional circumstances, such the 2018–19 Brexit debates, when the government temporarily lost control of the parliamentary agenda.
10 minute bills:
Ten minute rule bills are policy aspirations put into legislative language in order to secure a 10-minute speaking slot during ‘primetime’ in the House of Commons, after Question Time on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
- Therefore mostly important as an opportunity for backbenchers to raise issues of concern often relating to their constituencies as opposed to passing actual legislation.
- Party whips decide the slots, which somewhat undermines the independence of individual MPs in the process.
- A rare exception to their usual failure was the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017, which created a new legal status of guardian of the affairs of a missing person, allowing someone to act in the missing person’s best interests after they have been gone for 90 days or more.
- It was originally introduced as a ten minute rule bill by Conservative MP Kevin Hollinrake and subsequently passed into law.
Explain and Presentation bills
Any MP is permitted to introduce a bill of their choice, having given prior notice to the Public Bill Office.
- Presentation bills are formally ‘presented’ during a Friday sitting only, and only after all the ballot bills on the order paper have been presented.
- The MP presenting the bill does not give a speech and there is no debate on the proposals.
- Presentation bills can be used to address discrete, non-controversial policy issues and to resolve anomalies in the law. - However, with no speech or debate attached to them, they are less useful to MPs than ballot or Ten minute rule bills. -
However, the Brexit saga once again broke the rules in this regard. Both the Cooper–Letwin and Benn Acts referred to in the case study on page 37 were implemented by this device essentially because MPs took control of parliament’s agenda from the government in order to prevent a no-deal Brexit. In conclusion, there are clear opportunities for MPs to propose and, less frequently, to pass legislation but these depend on the following factors:
- Being uncontroversial.
- Getting lucky in being one of the 20 MPs successful in the ballot bills draw.
- Having government backing.
- Exceptional circumstances, such the 2018–19 Brexit debates, when the government temporarily lost control of the parliamentary agenda.
Indirect backbench pressure on government legislation:
A less common way ,especially for backbenchers from the governing party, to influence government legislation is by applying pressure before a bill ever reaches the floor of the House of Commons.
- Governments are often keen to ‘buy off’ rebels in advance and may make changes to the bill before it is first debated.
- On occasion, as in 2011 with the plans to privatise some English forests, major crossbench opposition (as well as a wider public outcry) forced the government to abandon its plans entirely. Sometimes, the government introduces legislation specifically as a result of pressure from its own backbenchers.
For example, in 2006, Labour backbenchers successfully persuaded Tony Blair’s government to bring in the Corporate Manslaughter Bill.
MPs as Representatives.
Aside from passing laws, its legislative function, parliament also fulfils a vital role in representing the people.
- This is, above all, true for the directly elected House of Commons.
- The Lords being unelected is less significant in terms of its representative function — as Lord Birkenhead once succinctly put it,
‘The noble Lord represents no one but himself, and I don’t think much of his constituency.’
MPs with constituencies are representatives of:
1. their constituents/voters
2. their party
3. special interests/groups they may feel strongly about
How well they perform this role is debatable.
How well does parliament perform its representation role ?
Performs very well:
1. All parts of the UK are represented geographically through 650 constituencies that are roughly equally sized and whose boundaries are drawn up independent of party bias by the Boundary Commission.
2. A wide range of parties is represented in the Commons, so ensuring a range of political opinions are represented.
3. The Commons is becoming more diverse particularly in terms of gender, race and sexuality. A record 220 women were elected in 2019. A total of 6% of MPs elected in 2019 openly identified as LGBTQ+, substantially higher than the 2% of the general population who identify as LGBTQ+.
4. MPs have a range of wider interests and specialist policy areas that they represent informally and speak about in debates or committees. These can include such diverse areas as disability, animal welfare and football.
Performs not well at all:
1. Not all constituencies are in fact equal in population size.
There are nearly six times more voters in the most populous constituency compared with the least populous.
2. The first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system favours the two largest parties and regionally concentrated parties such as the SNP. By contrast, it severely under-represents parties such as the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and UKIP.
3. Women remain significantly under-represented. While just over half of all voters are female, only 34% of 2019’s intake of MPs were women.
MPs increasingly come from backgrounds and have life experiences that are unrepresentative of the country as a whole. To take one example, a Sutton Trust report published after the 2019 election found that 29% of MPs were privately educated compared with 7% of the population as a whole.
Explain and analyse MPs as part-time representatives.
Many MPs take on jobs outside Parliament after being elected. In the 2017–19 Parliament, around 18% had second jobs, which must be declared in the Register of Members’ Interests to ensure transparency and avoid conflicts of interest. These roles range from serving as company directors to continuing limited work in their previous professions.
For example, Conservative MP Maria Caulfield, a former nurse, needed to complete 480 hours over three years to retain her professional registration. Labour MP Stephen Morgan remained a city councillor after entering Parliament in 2017.
This raises key questions about MPs as representatives:
• Can they fully serve their constituents while working other jobs?
• Do second jobs provide a broader perspective on life?
• If MPs are open about extra work, is it a problem? If voters are unhappy, they can vote them out.
• With an annual salary of nearly £80,000 in 2020, do MPs really need extra income that takes time away from their main role?
Explain and analyse MPs as representatives of particular interests:
MPs primarily represent their constituency and party but often advocate for specific interests or causes beyond these. These can range from sports to child protection and more.
Many MPs join all-party groups, which bring together members from different parties who share common concerns. Parliament has hundreds of such groups, covering diverse topics like pigeon racing, darts, independent education, and Scottish whisky.
Explain and analyse MPs as Constituency Problem Solvers
- MPs handle casework for all constituents, regardless of how they voted.
- Most hold regular surgeries by appointment to hear concerns on issues like housing, immigration, or miscarriages of justice.
- While they can’t provide instant solutions, they often raise matters with local councils, government departments, or in Commons debates—known as the redress of grievances.
- The workload is significant. One MP in 2010 reported receiving over 38,400 communications in 10 months, including 24,000 emails, 9,600 letters, and 4,800 calls, alongside dealing with 2,183 individual cases.
- MPs typically hire constituency caseworkers using their parliamentary allowance to help manage this.
- The volume and type of issues vary by constituency—inner-city MPs, for example, often receive more requests related to housing and social benefits.
What are the theories of representation?
- Burkean or trustee theory: argues elected officials are purely representatives of their voters. Once elected, they are entirely free to act in the interests of their electors as they see fit.
- Delegate theory: argues elected officials are purely representatives of their voters. Once elected, they are entirely free to act in the interests of their electors as they see fit.
- Mandate theory: Elected official who takes into account the needs of their constituents before exercising their own judgement when making political decisions.
Explain and analyse Burkean theory.
The Burkean theory comes from 18th-century political thinker and MP Edmund Burke. In 1774, he argued that an MP owes constituents their judgement, not just their obedience, stating:
“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
Burke believed MPs should consider their constituents’ views but ultimately use their own knowledge and experience to act in the public interest. This contrasts with the delegate model, where MPs simply mirror their constituents’ opinions.
Though weakened by party loyalty and the whipping system, trustee representation still appears occasionally. For example, Nick Boles, former Conservative MP for Grantham and Stamford, represented a Leave-voting constituency but supported Remain and voted against his party on Brexit. Critics argued he prioritized the national interest over party or constituency opinion.
Another example is ‘votes of conscience’, where MPs vote based on personal beliefs rather than party lines. These votes, often on moral issues like abortion or assisted dying, are typically unwhipped. A key case was the 2013 same-sex marriage vote, where over half of Conservative MPs either rebelled or abstained, despite then-Prime Minister David Cameron backing the bill. Since no major English party had pledged support for same-sex marriage in their 2010 manifestos, MPs felt free to vote based on personal conviction rather than party commitments.
Explain and analyse Delegate theory:
The delegate theory views MPs as mouthpieces for their constituents, acting on their wishes rather than personal judgement. However, it is difficult to apply in practice—how does an MP determine the majority view on a given issue? Should they rely on letters, emails, focus groups, or what if opinion is evenly split?
Despite these challenges, some MPs have followed this model. In 2015, Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith promised Richmond Park voters he would resign if the government backed a third runway at Heathrow. When the government supported the plan, he resigned in 2016, ran as an independent, and lost to the Liberal Democrats in the by-election.
Similarly, Stephen Lloyd, Liberal Democrat MP for Eastbourne, represented a Leave-voting seat but personally opposed Brexit. However, in 2017, he pledged to support Brexit in Commons votes to honour the referendum result. Against his own views and party policy, he kept his word, resigning the Lib Dem whip in the process. He lost his seat in 2019.
These cases suggest that voters don’t always reward MPs who strictly act as delegates, even when they keep their promises.
Explain and analyse mandate theory:
The mandate theory argues that MPs are elected primarily to implement their party’s manifesto, not to act independently. The idea is that voters elect a party, not an individual, so MPs owe their loyalty to their party once in parliament.
Evidence for this theory comes from cases where MPs leave their party mid-term and then stand for re-election as independents or for a different party—they almost always lose. For example, in 2019, long-serving and well-respected MP Frank Field left Labour and stood as an independent in his safe Labour seat of Birkenhead, only to be defeated. Similarly, former Conservative MP Anne Milton ran as an independent in Guildford and also lost.
A rare exception was Douglas Carswell, who was elected as a Conservative MP for Clacton, defected to UKIP in 2014, resigned, and won both the by-election and the 2015 general election under UKIP. However, this was in a strong Leave constituency, suggesting voters were still supporting the same policies rather than simply the party label.
The mandate theory has limitations, especially when new issues arise that weren’t in the manifesto. For example, in 2003, 139 Labour MPs rebelled against Tony Blair’s decision to invade Iraq, arguing they had the right to exercise personal judgement since the issue had not been in Labour’s 2001 manifesto.
Overall, while all three representation theories influence MPs’ voting, the mandate model usually prevails due to the strength of party politics. However, MPs may break from their party when local opinion strongly differs or when controversial new issues emerge between elections.
Scrutiny of the Executive
One of parliament’s key roles, alongside passing laws and representing voters, is scrutinising the government—holding it to account by ensuring its laws are fit for purpose and that ministers explain and defend their policies. This is known as scrutiny of the executive and is part of parliament’s deliberative function.
Opposition parties play a crucial role in this, but government backbenchers can also challenge their own party, especially when it is divided or pursuing a controversial policy. However, how effectively parliament performs this role is widely debated.
The main methods of scrutiny include:
• Debates in the chamber
• Parliamentary questions (including Prime Minister’s Questions)
• Parliamentary committees (both standing and select committees)
These mechanisms ensure that government actions are questioned, critiqued, and justified, strengthening democratic accountability.
Parliamentary debates and linking cause to study:
CASE STUDY: Parliamentary Debate Over Syrian Air Strikes
In August 2013, amid evidence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was using chemical weapons against civilians, Prime Minister David Cameron proposed airstrikes against Assad’s forces to deter further use of these illegal weapons. Despite the coalition government usually holding a reliable Commons majority, Cameron was defeated 285-272, with 30 Conservative and nine Liberal Democrat MPs voting against the motion.
The debate was highly charged, with many MPs recalling the Iraq War and questioning intelligence reports. Labour leader Ed Miliband stated that the public “wanted us to learn the lessons” of Iraq. Conservative MP David Davis warned, “Our intelligence as it stands might just be wrong, because it was before, and we have got to be very, very hard in testing it.” Similarly, Tory MP Cheryl Gillan declared, “I cannot sit in this House and be duped again.”
Cameron, using emotional language to justify intervention, urged MPs to confront the horrors of chemical warfare:
“There are pictures of bodies with symptoms consistent with that of nerve agent exposure, including muscle spasms and foaming at the nose and mouth. I believe that anyone in this chamber who has not seen these videos should force themselves to watch them.”
This defeat was significant, as it demonstrated parliament checking the power of the government. Following the vote, Cameron acknowledged parliament’s stance:
“It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.”
By rejecting the motion, parliament took the lead in shaping foreign policy, which traditionally falls under prime ministerial prerogative powers. While there is no legal requirement for parliamentary approval of military action, recent convention has led prime ministers to seek Commons support.
This was evident in December 2015, when MPs voted to support airstrikes against Islamic State (IS) targets in Syria. Similarly, in September 2014, the Commons overwhelmingly backed airstrikes against IS in Iraq, voting 524-43. This shift reflected changing public sentiment, particularly after the November 2015 Paris attacks, where nine IS-linked suicide bombers killed 130 civilians.
This case highlights how parliament’s stance on military intervention can change based on national mood and context, demonstrating its evolving role in holding the government to account.
Parliamentary Privilege:
In parliamentary debates, MPs and peers are protected by parliamentary privilege, a right established by the 1689 Bill of Rights. This grants them freedom of speech and the ability of both Houses of Parliament to regulate their own affairs without the usual laws of slander and contempt of court.
When speaking in the Palace of Westminster, MPs and peers are immune from laws on slander and contempt of court, allowing them to raise issues without fear of legal repercussions.
Since all parliamentary debates are publicly accessible, news outlets can freely report on them without the threat of prosecution. This principle has been used in several high-profile cases, most notably in 2018, when Lord Peter Hain broke an interim injunction granted by the Court of Appeal to name businessman Sir Philip Green as the subject of a legal order preventing a newspaper from identifying him. The injunction had stopped the Daily Telegraph from publishing allegations of sexual and racial harassment against Green.
This case demonstrates how parliamentary privilege allows MPs and peers to disclose information in the public interest, even when legal restrictions apply outside Parliament.
Emergency debate:
MPs can request emergency debates, which the Speaker grants at their discretion if the topic is a specific and urgent matter requiring immediate attention. If approved, the MP has three minutes to present their case to the House.
During the 2017–19 parliamentary session, 22 emergency debates took place on various issues. Some, like Brexit and the rollout of Universal Credit, were highly political and partisan, while others were more neutral. A key example of a non-partisan emergency debate was the contaminated blood scandal, where patients contracted hepatitis C and HIV from infected blood transfusions. In July 2017, Labour MP Diana Johnson called for an emergency debate on the issue. That same day, Downing Street announced a full inquiry, highlighting how emergency debates can be an effective way to pressure the government into action.
Recent developments:
In Parliamentary Debate and Scrutiny
Beyond high-profile debates like Syrian air strikes and Brexit, backbench MPs now have more opportunities to scrutinise the government.
One major reform was the Backbench Business Committee, set up in 2010 following the Wright Committee’s 2009 proposals. It gives MPs greater control over Commons business, deciding debate topics for one day per week in the Commons and Westminster Hall.
Westminster Hall debates, held four days a week, provide a more informal setting for discussion. MPs apply for debate slots through a ballot arranged by the Speaker’s Office. There are no votes, but MPs use this platform to raise constituency issues. For example, on 12 February 2020, Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Cumbria) led a debate on support for hill farmers, while Ben Bradley (Conservative, Mansfield) focused on the education and attainment of white working-class boys.
Petitions and E-Petitions
Mondays are reserved for debates on petitions, including e-petitions. Any petition with over 100,000 signatures is considered for debate, though not guaranteed. During the COVID-19 pandemic, several high-profile petitions gained traction:
• Self-employed statutory sick pay – Nearly 700,000 signatures, but ultimately rejected by the government.
• Scrapping NHS staff parking charges – Over 415,000 signatures, leading to extra government funding for NHS trusts to cover costs.
Though e-petitions do not force action, they sometimes influence policy, as seen with NHS parking fees.
Effectiveness of Westminster Hall Debates
While Westminster Hall debates provide a platform for discussion, their impact is limited. Like select committees, they can only demand a government response, not enforce action. Debates are often poorly attended.
However, on occasion, they exert indirect influence. In 2017, over 1 million people signed a petition to ban Donald Trump from making a state visit to the UK, far outnumbering a counter-petition in support. The heated debate in Parliament didn’t stop the visit but may have contributed to Trump not addressing Parliament, reflecting MPs’ opposition.
Conclusions on the importance of debates: the grounds arguing how weak scrutiny from debates to the government.
Conclusions on the Importance of Parliamentary Debates
While debates are a key part of parliamentary democracy, their actual impact in checking and scrutinising the government is often limited.
• Most MPs do not change their minds during debates, having already decided or been instructed on how to vote.
• The government usually wins votes due to its overall majority and the party whip system.
• The payroll vote, consisting of MPs in government positions who must support the government unless they resign, further strengthens the executive’s position. The number of payroll MPs has grown significantly—from 101 in 1960 to 141 in 2018, though it fell slightly to 134 in 2020. This reduces internal rebellion within the governing party.
• Westminster Hall debates are often poorly attended and have no direct power over government decisions.
Weakness of Budget and Finance Debates
• Finance and money bills receive little scrutiny. A 2018 Democratic Audit report described finance debates as ‘general political talk-fests’ rather than serious scrutiny of taxation and spending plans.
• A budget vote is treated as a confidence vote—any MP who rebels risks losing the whip.
• Only four days are usually allocated to budget debates, which often become party-political exercises rather than detailed financial examination.
Limited Influence of Lords Debates
• While Lords debates often feature high-quality and informed contributions, their power to challenge government policy is weak.
• The Lords frequently propose amendments, but these are often rejected by the Commons.
• For example, during Boris Johnson’s 2020 Brexit Bill, the Lords proposed five amendments, including the Dubs amendment (allowing child refugees to reunite with families in the UK post-Brexit). None were accepted by the Commons.
Overall
Although parliamentary debates provide opportunities for discussion, their ability to change government policy or hold the executive accountable remains limited, especially when the government commands a strong majority.
Parliamentary Questions:
Parliamentary questions are a high-profile way of holding the government to account. These can be written or oral, with most being written. In 2017–18, MPs asked over 55,000 questions, with over 50,000 submitted in writing. The majority were directed at departments managing key public services like health and education. This marked a 42% increase from the previous year, suggesting a growing tendency among MPs to question the government.
Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs)
The most notable oral questioning session is Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), held every Wednesday at noon for 30 minutes. However, its effectiveness is widely debated.
• Government backbenchers often use PMQs to ask ‘patsy’ questions—softball questions designed to praise the government rather than scrutinise it.
• These questions sometimes attack the opposition rather than challenge government policy.
For example, at PMQs in March 2020, newly elected Conservative MP Shaun Bailey asked Boris Johnson:
“Communities like mine in West Bromwich West are grateful for this government’s commitment to 366 police officers for the West Midlands. Will my Right Hon. Friend reaffirm that, unlike the Labour police and crime commissioner, who is decimating communities like mine in Tipton with the closure of our police station, this government is committed to keep our communities safe through investment in the police and tougher sentences for criminals?”
This type of question does little to scrutinise the government and instead serves as a political statement.
While parliamentary questions provide a formal mechanism for accountability, their effectiveness varies. Written questions allow for detailed scrutiny, but PMQs often become a political spectacle, with backbenchers using them to reinforce party lines rather than genuinely interrogate the government.
How effective are PMQ’s? Effective and non effective
Evidence for PMQs as an effective way of checking the government:
1. It is high profile and widely publicised, with clips often featuring in the television news or on social media.
2. It forces the prime minister to directly address key issues of the day. It is the most direct method of scrutiny, and most heads of the executive in other countries do not face it.
3. It offers particular opportunities for the leader of the opposition to stake a claim to the premiership by delivering a ‘better’ debating performance. 4. A good example is of David Cameron who, as newly elected Conservative leader in 2005, famously quipped that Tony Blair ‘was the future once’.
5. PMQs keep prime ministers on their toes and directly accountable to parliament. Most prime ministers, even the most self-assured, regard it with fear. In a 2015 BBC documentary on the workings of parliament, Cameron said,
‘There isn’t a Wednesday that you don’t feel total fear and trepidation about what is about to happen.’ Blair echoed this when he compared PMQs as akin to being led to his own execution.
Evidence against PMQs as an effective way of checking the government
1. It gives a highly misleading and distorted image of parliament’s work and how government is scrutinised. Most debates and ministerial questions are nothing like as adversarial or theatrical.
2. It is mostly an environment for ‘Punch and Judy’ politics and petty point-scoring. Former speaker John Bercow stated in 2014, ‘There are people who think culturally the atmosphere is very male, very testosterone-fuelled and, in the worst cases, of yobbery and public school twittishness.’
3. An opinion poll by the independent Hansard Society found that PMQs made just 12% of the public feel proud of parliament. By contrast, no less than 67% felt there was too much party political point-scoring as opposed to answering the questions asked.
4. Many MPs from the ruling party use it as an opportunity to ask ‘patsy questions’ that are solely intended to show the government in a good light. More cynically, some see it as an opportunity to ingratiate themselves with the frontbench in the hope of future promotion.
Urgent questions:
Beyond the theatrical clashes of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), MPs have increasingly used Urgent Questions (UQs) to hold ministers to account.
• MPs apply to the Speaker on the morning of the session, requesting permission to ask a UQ later that day.
• The Speaker decides which requests are granted, meaning UQs are at their discretion.
• Following the 2017 Queen’s Speech, 114 UQs were granted in just one year.
UQs have covered a wide range of issues, both domestic and international. Examples include:
• The case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian citizen jailed in Iran.
• The publication of the government’s White Paper on immigration.
• The cost of policing President Trump’s UK visit.
Conclusion
UQs offer a more immediate and flexible form of scrutiny than standard parliamentary questions. While they rely on the Speaker’s discretion, their increased use suggests a growing demand for ministers to respond to urgent and high-profile issues in real time.
What 3 types of committees are there?
There are three main types of parliamentary committee, all of which play a part in scrutinising the government. They are:
1. public bill committees
2. select committees
3. Lords committees
Public bill committees:
Public Bill Committees (formerly known as standing committees) examine legislation line by line and can propose changes. However, their effectiveness is questionable.
• Temporary Nature – Committees only exist for the duration of the bill, unlike permanent select committees, meaning they lack continuity and expertise.
• Government Control – The ruling party always holds a majority, making significant amendments unlikely.
• External Input – They can take oral and written evidence from the public and pressure groups.
• Size & Structure – Typically, they have 16 to 20 MPs and are named after the bill they examine (e.g. the Equality Bill Committee).
Effectiveness in Question
The UCL Constitution Unit (2013) argued that bill scrutiny is Parliament’s weakest function, stating:
“Parliamentary scrutiny of bills is arguably where the House of Commons is at its weakest — and the committee stage is central to that weakness.”
With the government ensuring control over these committees, their ability to meaningfully challenge legislation remains limited.
Advantages and disadvantages of public bill committees:
Advantages
1. Detailed Scrutiny – MPs examine legislation in greater detail than in general debates.
2. Bipartisan Oversight – Committees have two joint chairs, one from the governing party and one from the Official Opposition.
3. Effective Changes – They can make meaningful amendments. For example, during scrutiny of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, additional safeguards were added to protect journalists.
4. Public & Expert Input – Committees call for outside evidence before full scrutiny begins. Witnesses include pressure groups, individuals, and experts. For example, environmental activist George Monbiot gave oral evidence to the 2019–21 Environment Bill Committee.
5. Ministerial Involvement – Committees usually include a relevant government minister. The 2019–21 Environment Bill Committee had Rebecca Pow, a junior DEFRA minister.
Disadvantages
1. Government Dominance – Membership is proportional to party strength, so the government always holds a majority.
2. Limited Influence – Major amendments are rare; only 0.5% of opposition amendments are accepted.
3. Lack of Expertise – Committees are temporary, so MPs don’t develop long-term expertise. Only 8% of bill committee members also sit on the relevant departmental select committee.
4. Party Control – Membership is decided by party whips, meaning loyalists are favoured over independent-minded MPs.
While bill committees offer a platform for scrutiny and public input, their temporary nature and government control limit their ability to make substantial changes.
Select committees: 1) role and function 2) PAC committee 3) department select committees
1) Role and Function of Select Committees
Select committees play a crucial role in holding the government to account by scrutinising policy decisions, government spending, and legislation. They conduct investigations, call witnesses, and publish reports with key recommendations. In addition to their general oversight, they also review draft bills before they are formally debated in Parliament.
2) The Public Accounts Committee (PAC)
One of the most significant select committees is the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which has scrutinised government spending since 1857. It investigates major projects such as HS2 and the financial sustainability of University Technical Colleges (UTCs), 10 of which closed between 2014 and 2019. Unlike most committees, the PAC is chaired by a senior opposition backbencher—following the 2019 election, this role was held by Labour MP Meg Hillier.
3) Departmental Select Committees
The modern system of departmental select committees was introduced in 1979, ensuring that every government department is shadowed by a corresponding committee. These committees are often chaired by MPs with expertise in their respective policy areas. For example:
• The Health Select Committee was chaired by former GP Sarah Wollaston before 2019 and later by ex-Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.
• The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired since 2017 by Robert Parish, a Conservative MP from a farming background.
By 2020, there were 28 select committees, most of which corresponded directly to government departments, with the Petitions Committee being a notable exception.
Select committees: 4) membership and election of chairs 5) power and influence of select committees 6) effectiveness
Role and Function of Select Committees
Select committees play a crucial role in holding the government to account by scrutinising policy decisions, government spending, and legislation. They conduct investigations, call witnesses, and publish reports with key recommendations. In addition to their general oversight, they also review draft bills before they are formally debated in Parliament.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC)
One of the most significant select committees is the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which has scrutinised government spending since 1857. It investigates major projects such as HS2 and the financial sustainability of University Technical Colleges (UTCs), 10 of which closed between 2014 and 2019. Unlike most committees, the PAC is chaired by a senior opposition backbencher—following the 2019 election, this role was held by Labour MP Meg Hillier.
Departmental Select Committees
The modern system of departmental select committees was introduced in 1979, ensuring that every government department is shadowed by a corresponding committee. These committees are often chaired by MPs with expertise in their respective policy areas. For example:
• The Health Select Committee was chaired by former GP Sarah Wollaston before 2019 and later by ex-Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.
• The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired since 2017 by Robert Parish, a Conservative MP from a farming background.
By 2020, there were 28 select committees, most of which corresponded directly to government departments, with the Petitions Committee being a notable exception.
Membership and Election of Chairs
Committee membership reflects party balance in the House of Commons, meaning the government typically holds a majority. However, since 2010, committee chairs have been elected by a secret ballot of all MPs at the start of each parliamentary session. This limits the influence of party whips and ensures that some committees are chaired by opposition MPs.
In January 2020, while 13 committee chairs were elected unopposed, some positions were highly contested—Julian Knight won the chair of the DCMS Committee by just nine votes. Despite the government’s majority, select committees do not always follow party lines; for instance, in 2020, the Treasury Select Committee supported extending the COVID-19 furlough scheme, a policy backed by Labour.
Power and Influence of Select Committees
A key strength of select committees is that MPs often serve on them for extended periods, allowing them to develop specialist knowledge, sometimes exceeding that of government ministers, who typically rotate through roles more quickly. Since 2003, committee chairs have been given an additional salary and enjoy a high media profile, making committee work an attractive career path for ambitious MPs.
Committees set their own agendas, choosing which topics to investigate and who to call as witnesses. They have significant authority to summon individuals for questioning, often subjecting high-profile figures to intense scrutiny. Examples include:
• Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley, forced to answer questions about poor working conditions.
• Retail magnate Sir Philip Green, interrogated over the BHS pensions scandal.
• Former Immigration Minister Caroline Nokes, who appeared visibly irritated when questioned about issues faced by highly skilled migrants. She was later accused of misleading Parliament but was still elected chair of the Women and Equalities Committee in 2020.
Power to Review Ministerial Appointments
Since 2007, select committees have had the authority to review major ministerial appointments. By 2017, out of 59 pre-appointment hearings, 13 cases resulted in divided opinions or outright rejection. Examples include:
• Amanda Spielman (Ofsted Chief Inspector) – initially rejected by the Education Committee after an unconvincing performance but later appointed.
• Charlotte Hogg (Deputy Governor of the Bank of England) – resigned two weeks into the job after the Treasury Select Committee criticised her incomplete answers.
Effectiveness and Limitations
Select committees have become increasingly influential due to their independence, investigative power, and ability to challenge the government. The introduction of elected chairs has enhanced their credibility, and their reports often carry significant weight when they achieve cross-party consensus.
However, their influence is limited by the fact that the government is not obligated to implement their recommendations. While they can highlight issues and hold ministers accountable, they lack the power to enforce changes. Nonetheless, they remain one of the most important mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny.
CASE STUDY
Select committee inquiries: the Transport Select Committee
In September 2019, the Transport Select Committee issued a report criticising the Department for Transport for failing to take action on pavement parking, despite promises made in 2015. The committee found that, despite multiple internal reviews and consultations, little progress had been made.
The report highlighted the impact of pavement parking, particularly on parents with children, and those with visual or mobility impairments. It argued that the practice discouraged vulnerable individuals from leaving their homes, increasing social isolation.
To address the issue, the committee recommended a nationwide ban on pavement parking and called for a public awareness campaign to highlight its negative effects. In response, in March 2020, the Department for Transport announced plans to consult on whether local authorities should be given greater powers to tackle the problem.
Debate: How Effective Are Select Committees in Scrutinising and Influencing the Executive?
Effective
• Thorough Scrutiny of Government Policy – Select committees provide a structured and detailed forum for scrutinising government actions, allowing for more in-depth investigation than Commons debates. They have tackled major issues such as Brexit and institutional racism in the police.
• Less Partisan Approach – Unlike the adversarial nature of the Commons, select committees aim for consensus rather than political competition, making their work more objective and credible.
• Influence on Policy and Decision-Making – Committee recommendations often shape policy, and they have the power to call and question witnesses, including ministers and civil servants, forcing them to justify their decisions.
• Independent and Experienced Leadership – Since 2010, chairs and members are elected by secret ballot, reducing party whips’ influence and allowing more independent-minded MPs to take charge. Many chairs have ministerial experience or policy expertise, strengthening scrutiny.
• Growing Public and Media Influence – Select committees have gained significant media attention, increasing their public profile. Between 2008 and 2012, press mentions of the Home Affairs Committee rose from 295 to 2,033, demonstrating their growing public impact and accountability.
• Oversight of Executive Appointments – Some select committees can scrutinise ministerial appointments, holding potential candidates to account and ensuring greater transparency in government hiring decisions.
Not Very Effective
• Avoidance of Politicised Issues – In seeking a bipartisan approach, committees sometimes steer clear of highly contentious topics, limiting their ability to challenge the government on the most divisive issues.
• Party Loyalty and Government Control – Despite their independence, party loyalty still plays a role in select committee decisions. Between 2010 and 2019, 125 out of 1,325 reports saw votes along party lines, reducing their ability to challenge the government effectively.
• Government Holds a Majority – The governing party always has a majority on committees, limiting their ability to block government policies or make significant changes to legislation.
• Limited Power Over Policy – While committees can make recommendations, the government is not obliged to accept them, and the majority are rejected, meaning their influence is not always substantial.
• Evasive Ministerial Responses – Ministers and officials often give vague or evasive answers, making scrutiny less effective. Even poor performances before committees rarely damage a minister’s career in the long term.
• Lack of Legislative Power – Unlike US Senate committees, UK select committees cannot veto executive appointments and do not play a direct role in shaping legislation. Public bill committees, controlled by party whips, are responsible for legislative scrutiny instead.
Conclusion
Select committees provide important scrutiny of the executive, holding ministers and civil servants to account, influencing policy, and increasing government transparency. However, their effectiveness is limited by government control, party loyalty, and the lack of legislative power. While they raise public awareness of key issues and apply pressure on the government, they do not have the authority to enforce real change, meaning their influence remains significant but ultimately constrained.
Lords Committees:
Lower Significance Compared to Commons Committees
Lords committees are considered the least significant of the three main types of parliamentary committees. This is largely due to the House of Lords’ limited power compared to the Commons. Unlike Commons select committees, Lords committees do not shadow government departments. Instead, they focus on specialist subjects, making use of the Lords’ expertise in various fields.
Main Permanent Committees
There are six main permanent Lords committees:
• European Union Committee
• Science and Technology Committee
• Communications Committee
• Constitution Committee
• Economic Affairs Committee
• International Relations Committee
Ad Hoc Committees and Special Inquiries
In addition to permanent committees, short-term ad hoc committees are created to investigate specific concerns. Peers propose topics for special inquiries to the Lords Liaison Committee, which then decides which ones should be established. Typically, the Lords appoints four special inquiry committees per year.
For example, in May 2020, a COVID-19 Committee was created to assess the long-term economic and social impacts of the pandemic in the UK.
How Lords Committees Operate
Lords committees function similarly to select committees in that they conduct inquiries, take evidence from witnesses, and produce reports with recommendations. However, they differ in key ways:
• Lords committees typically have 12 members, not 11 as in the Commons.
• The government does not hold a majority, reflecting the party balance in the Lords.
Example of Lords Committee Work
In 2014, the Communications Committee produced a report on televised election debates. One key recommendation was that broadcasters should create a single online portal containing information on all debates and recordings. Notably, this recommendation was directed at media organisations rather than the government.
Despite this report, controversies over televised debates continued in later elections, suggesting that Lords committees often struggle to bring about tangible change.
Conclusion
Lords committees provide expert-led scrutiny on a range of specialist topics, benefiting from the Lords’ diverse experience. However, their overall influence is limited compared to Commons committees. While they can raise awareness and propose reforms, their lack of direct legislative power means their recommendations often fail to bring about major policy changes.
Committees recap:
- Public bill committees
a) Function: Go through bills clause by clause, debate and suggest amendments. Temporary, only meet while a bill is in the committee stage of the legislative process.
b) Significance: Ensure bills are properly written and can fulfil the aims of their writers. An opportunity for other MPs, peers and interest groups to lobby and suggest changes. Major changes are unlikely as the governing party has a majority on the committee and party whips choose the members on each committee. - Commons select committees:
a) Provide a more general oversight of the workings of government departments and ministerial actions. Less party political and partisan, for example they sit in a horseshoe form rather than as two opposing sides facing each other. Aim for greater cross-party collaboration and consensus. Many are chaired by opposition backbenchers. Able to select their own areas for investigation and can summon witnesses.
b) Significance: Comprised entirely of backbench MPs. Committee chairs are elected by their fellow MPs, not selected by party whips. Produce reports to which the government must usually reply within 60 days. The government is not obliged to carry out any findings or recommendations in their reports. Their reports and hearings often generate publicity in the media. Individuals can refuse to appear. This is truer for foreign nationals such as Facebook’s (now Meta) CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, who in 2018 refused for the third time to attend a select committee investigating fake news. British citizens can be compelled to attend or be punished for contempt of parliament. - Public Accounts Committee (Commons only)
a) function: Traditionally chaired by an experienced opposition backbencher (Meg Hillier in 2022). Scrutinises value for money in public spending and how well/efficiently the government delivers public services.
b) Significance: Covers a wide range of policy areas. Recent reports have ranged from the effectiveness of the NHS Track and Trace system during the pandemic to the cost of policing protests against the HS2 rail project. - Lords select committees
a) function: Investigate specialist subjects, taking advantage of the Lords’ expertise and the greater amount of time (compared to MPs) available to them to examine issues. Currently six main committees, covering: the EU, communications, science and technology, economic affairs, the constitution and international relations.
b) significance: Often contain genuine specialists in their field. The governing party does not have a majority on
the committees.
Government control of civil servants
+ Traditionally, the government had a lot of control over civil servants
appearing before select committees.
* The original Osmotherly Rules allowed plenty of scope for senior civil servants to be evasive and vague in their answers before committees.
However, they were revised in 2014 and civil servants are now required to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of the Civil Service Code.
+ For example, in 2016 the Home Affairs Select Committee ejected Oliver Robbins, a senior civil servant, for failing to respond adequately to questions about the budget of the UK’s border force. Civil servants must balance their answers with due regard to ministerial accountability and not deliberately undermine their political masters - the ministers.
Other parliamentary committees
There are a number of other committees that perform a scrutiny role.
- One of the most important is the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, originally set up by the Intelligence Services Act 1994.
- It oversees Britain’s intelligence community including MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. Comprising members of both the Lords and the Commons, the committee’s membership is selected via the party whips, but it elects its own chair.
Page 27, revision booklet. If you care
Overall effectiveness and significance of committees:
- Select committees are certainly active and between them produce dozens of reports each year. Among the areas investigated and scrutinised in the 2019–21 parliamentary session was the government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic and cladding on blocks of flats following the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
- It is estimated that around 40% of committee recommendations are accepted by the government and a similar proportion go on to be implemented. Around one-third of recommendations for major policy changes succeed. The 2016 report by the Work and Pensions Select Committee into the collapse of the retailer BHS and the loss of much of its employees’ pension fund resulted in the company and its owners being reported to the Pensions Regulator.
- Committee chairs are paid a salary equivalent to that of a junior minister, offering MPs an attractive career alternative to ministerial office.
27
What are the opportunities that exist for an MP to influence policy and represent voters:
These include:
• voting on legislation, rebelling against their party on occasions
• proposing legislation via PMBs
• speaking in debates
• asking questions, oral or written, of ministers
• informal lobbying or chats with ministers, often related to issues raised by or affecting their constituents
• serving on committees
• joining all-party groups
The role of the opposition in parliament:
The Role of the Opposition in Parliament
The opposition plays a crucial role in scrutinising the government and providing alternative policies. It comes in several forms:
• The Official Opposition – The second-largest party in the Commons (Labour or Conservative since the 1920s).
• Other opposition parties – Smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats, SNP, and Plaid Cymru.
• Intra-party opposition – Dissent within the governing party.
• Inter-party opposition – Disagreements within a coalition government, such as during the 2010–2015 Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.
Regardless of its form, the opposition must challenge government decisions and offer credible policy alternatives. For example, those opposing a no-deal Brexit proposed staying in the customs union or holding a second referendum. The Official Opposition is expected to present itself as a ‘government-in-waiting’, with a shadow cabinet mirroring government ministers.
Ways the Opposition Challenges the Government
Leader of the Opposition’s Special Privileges
• Has the first right of reply to major government statements.
• Leads questioning at PMQs, asking the first and up to five more questions.
• The Leader of the Opposition and three opposition whips receive an additional salary.
Opposition Days
• 20 days per year are allocated for opposition parties to set the agenda (17 for the Official Opposition, 3 for the second-largest opposition party).
• Used to highlight key issues and criticise government policies.
• Though motions are not binding, they can influence government decisions.
• Example: In 2009, an opposition motion on allowing Gurkhas (Nepalese soldiers in the British army) to settle in the UK led to a government U-turn after 27 Labour MPs rebelled.
Shadow Cabinet and Policy Proposals
• Shadow ministers question government ministers and propose policy alternatives.
• Example: Labour’s shadow transport ministers argued for rail renationalisation in response to poor rail services.
Select Committees and Scrutiny
• Select committees frequently produce reports critical of government policies, strengthening opposition arguments.
Intra-Party Opposition and Coalition Disputes
• During the coalition government, opposition from Liberal Democrat MPs led the Conservatives to drop plans to lower inheritance tax.
• During Brexit (2018-19), opposition MPs and Conservative rebels blocked Theresa May’s Brexit deals. However, they failed to agree on an alternative solution.
Conclusion
The opposition is essential in holding the government to account, challenging policy failures, and offering alternative solutions. While it can sometimes force policy changes, its effectiveness is limited by the government’s parliamentary majority and the non-binding nature of opposition day motions.
The significance of the opposition:
The effectiveness of the opposition in holding the government to account depends on several key factors, particularly parliamentary arithmetic and the political context.
Parliamentary Arithmetic and Government Majorities
• A government with a small or no majority gives the opposition greater power, as seen with Theresa May’s 2017–19 government.
• With a weak majority, the government is more vulnerable to parliamentary defeats, increasing the opposition’s influence.
• A strong opposition performance in elections suggests public support for their policies, increasing their legitimacy and impact.
National Crises and the Role of Opposition
• In times of national emergencies (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic), opposition parties often adopt a supportive stance to prioritise national unity over political point-scoring.
• However, the existence of opposition parties still influences government decisions.
• Example: The government’s multi-billion-pound job retention scheme during the COVID-19 outbreak may have been influenced by fears of political backlash if they failed to act decisively.
Conclusion: The Balance of Power in a Democracy
• The opposition’s main role is to challenge the government and propose alternatives, but an effective democracy requires an ‘equilibrium of legitimacy’.
• The opposition should not attempt to veto or block every government policy, but rather provide constructive scrutiny.
• Similarly, the government must allow open opportunities for the opposition to challenge its decisions.
• As Lord Norton stated: ‘Good government needs an effective opposition.’ Ultimately, a strong and responsible opposition leads to better governance by holding the executive accountable while ensuring political stability.
Recap on roles:
+ provide scrutiny and reasoned criticism of government policies and
actions in debates and via parliamentary questions + suggest amendments to bills
+ argue for alternatives — what they would do if in power ‡ nomide a greece torin at on es cially wich pariane cary session;:
17 go to the official opposition party, three to the second-largest opposition party.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Opposition in UK Politics
Strengths of the Opposition
• Funding and Parliamentary Privileges – The Official Opposition receives Short money to support policy research and benefits from extra privileges in parliament, such as speaking rights and guaranteed opposition days.
• Alternative Government – The opposition can present itself as a credible alternative, helping shape public debate and future election prospects.
• Influencing Government Policy – In certain cases, the opposition can pressure the government into policy changes, such as with:
• The Gurkhas settlement policy (2009)
• Opposition to aspects of Brexit negotiations
• Exploiting Internal Government Divisions – When government backbenchers rebel, the opposition can capitalise on divisions to block legislation.
• Example: 2012 Conservative rebellion blocked Lords reform under David Cameron.
Weaknesses of the Opposition
• Government Control Over Parliamentary Business – The government chooses debate topics and has greater resources, including the Cabinet Office and special advisers for research.
• Dependence on Shadow Cabinet Performance – The effectiveness of the opposition depends on key figures, whose credibility can make or break their influence.
• Example: In 2017, Diane Abbott’s poor LBC interview on police funding damaged Labour’s credibility.
• Difficulty in Blocking Government Legislation – The government almost always gets its policies through parliament, as opposition successes are rare.
• Internal Party Opposition is Limited – Backbench rebellions only succeed if opposition parties unite behind them. Otherwise, they rarely overturn government decisions.
Conclusion
The opposition plays a crucial role in scrutinising the government and can force policy changes under the right circumstances. However, its power is limited by government control over parliament, resource disparities, and internal weaknesses. Most of the time, the government’s will prevails, unless political divisions or public pressure create opportunities for the opposition to exert real influence.
How parliament interacts with other branches of government:
The UK operates under a fusion of powers, as the executive is formed from the legislature. However, parliament’s key function is to check and scrutinise the government. Unlike many Western democracies, power is concentrated in the Commons rather than shared between two chambers. This means the key political relationship is between the government and the Commons, rather than between separate branches of government.
Parliamentary Scrutiny vs. Executive Control
Under normal circumstances, the government dominates parliament, controlling the legislative agenda and benefiting from a party majority. However, exceptional circumstances—such as a hung parliament or a divided governing party—can shift power towards parliament. This was evident during Brexit debates in 2018-19 when backbench MPs and opposition parties played a significant role in shaping the political agenda.
Limits to Executive Power
While a government with a strong majority, like Labour in 1997 or the Conservatives in 2019, can dominate, parliamentary influence remains significant. Internal opposition from backbench MPs, select committees, and pressure from public opinion can force government U-turns. Even with executive control, parliament can challenge legislation, demand ministerial accountability, and influence key policy decisions.
Conclusion
In theory, the UK government dominates parliament due to its majority and control over the legislative process. However, when circumstances weaken executive control—such as political crises, leadership instability, or backbench rebellions—parliament can become a more powerful check on the government.
Key points
+ Parliament provides the personnel for government: prime minister and
ministers.
+ It is the forum where government is primarily called to account and
scrutinised.
+ It passes the laws that are then interpreted and enforced by the judiciary.
+ Any laws passed must be compatible with international agreements such
as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Influence of parliament on government decisions
Parliament influences government decisions in the following ways:
+ the committee system and committee reports
+ election of select committee chairs and members (no longer appointed by
party whips)
+ debates and questions
+ backbench rebellions in the Commons + informal lobbying of ministers by MPs and peers + amending legislation, especially in the Lords.
However, there are limits to parliament’s influence on government:
+ Governments can and do ignore select committee reports.
+ Select committees are poorly resourced compared to government
departments.
+ Government majorities usually see off backbench revolts.
+ Party whips ensure party discipline.
+ The government is in control of most of the parliamentary timetable.
+ Many MPs aspire to promotion so are wary of upsetting the party
leadership.
+ The government can use its Commons majority to override the Lords’ amendments or rejection of a bill using, if necessary, the Parliament Act.
Party discipline in the Commons
✚ Both the governing and opposition parties use a whipping system to enforce party discipline and minimise internal dissent in parliamentary votes.
✚ Most governments have large and stable enough majorities to defeat backbench rebellions (e.g. the Blair government and student tuition fees) and thus outvote the opposition.
✚ Party discipline is most fragile when a government has only a small or non-existent majority and seeks to get through legislation that is controversial with some of its own backbenchers and the main opposition parties. However, much of the time party discipline does not need to be enforced as MPs will naturally vote the way their leadership wants.
✚ The most important votes are termed three-line whips, when MPs must turn up and vote the way their leaders wish.
✚ Votes on matters of conscience, such as assisted dying or abortion, are not usually whipped, allowing MPs a free vote.
✚ Whips exert further control over party discipline by partly controlling the allocation of MPs to public bill committees, although select committee chairs and membership are now decided by a secret ballot of all MPs, thereby weakening the whips’ power.
Three-line whips:
Parliamentary votes when
MPs must follow the voting orders of the whips. Failure to do so by a minister would lead to resignation or dismissal. Backbenchers who frequently rebel are unlikely to be offered posts in the government or on the opposition front bench.
Free vote:
A vote when MPs are free to vote how they wish, rather than being instructed to vote a certain way by the party leadership.
Debate: Does the Executive Dominate Parliament?
Evidence for Executive Dominance
• Party Whipping and Discipline
Government-backed bills usually pass with minimal amendments due to strong party discipline. Whips ensure MPs vote along party lines, meaning major rebellions are rare. Even when backbenchers express concerns, they often ultimately vote with the government.
• Government Control of Parliamentary Business
Most days of parliamentary business are scheduled and controlled by the government, giving the executive dominance over the legislative agenda.
• Limited Success of Private Members’ Bills (PMBs)
PMBs almost always require government support to pass. The exceptional circumstances of Brexit allowed the Benn and Cooper–Letwin bills to pass despite government opposition, but this is highly unusual. The Johnson government later overrode them with its own Brexit bill, passed in just 11 days with little scrutiny.
• Select Committees’ Limited Influence
Although they provide detailed scrutiny, governments ignore around 60% of their recommendations. Select committees do not have the power to force policy changes, limiting their effectiveness as a check on the executive.
• Debates Follow Party Lines
Public bill committees, which scrutinise legislation, are largely controlled by the government because whips determine their membership. This reduces the likelihood of major amendments being passed against government wishes.
• PMQs and Question Time as Theatrics
While prime ministers and ministers must face questions, these sessions often focus on political point-scoring rather than forensic scrutiny of policy. The adversarial nature of PMQs, in particular, can detract from meaningful accountability.
⸻
Evidence Against Executive Dominance
• Minority or Coalition Governments Face Defeats
Governments with small or no majorities can struggle to pass legislation. Theresa May’s government (2017–2019) repeatedly failed to get her Brexit deal through, demonstrating that a weak majority can severely limit executive control.
• Opposition Days Provide Some Control
Opposition parties have 20 opposition days per year (17 for the Official Opposition), allowing them to set the debate agenda. While these debates are non-binding, they can pressure the government into policy changes. In 2009, Labour lost an opposition day vote on allowing Gurkhas to settle in the UK, eventually leading to a government U-turn.
• Private Members’ Bills Can Succeed
Although rare, some PMBs addressing major social issues—such as abortion and the abolition of the death penalty—have passed without government backing, showing that parliament is not entirely powerless.
• Select Committees Are More Independent
Since 2010, select committee chairs have been elected by a secret ballot rather than being appointed by party whips. This has increased their independence and made their work more credible. Some high-profile inquiries—such as the 2020 investigation into the government’s COVID-19 response—have placed significant pressure on ministers.
• Parliament Scrutinises Legislation
Bills must go through multiple stages of debate and committee review, meaning parliament has opportunities to challenge government proposals. While major defeats are rare, the process forces ministers to defend and sometimes amend legislation.
• MPs Can Hold Ministers to Account
Question time, select committees, and debates give MPs opportunities to scrutinise the government. Even if PMQs is often theatrical, ministerial question sessions can provide serious scrutiny of policy decisions.
⸻
Conclusion
The executive clearly holds significant power over parliament, particularly when it has a strong majority. The government controls most of the legislative agenda, party discipline ensures its bills usually pass, and scrutiny mechanisms like select committees have limited enforcement power. However, parliamentary checks become more effective in certain circumstances, such as minority governments, coalition agreements, or high-profile policy controversies like Brexit. While executive dominance is the norm, it is not absolute, and a strong parliament can still challenge the government when conditions allow.
How Effective is Scrutiny of the Executive in Practice?
The effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny of the executive is a topic of debate, with both strengths and weaknesses to consider. While parliament has modernised and improved its ability to scrutinise the government, certain limitations still persist.
Strengths of Parliamentary Scrutiny:
• Rebelliousness of MPs
Since the 1980s, MPs have increasingly challenged government policies. This is evident in key issues like Brexit, the Iraq War, and foreign interventions. Domestic policies like student tuition fees have also seen significant backbench rebellions, reflecting greater independence within parliament.
• Independent Select Committees
Select committees, especially those focused on government departments, have become more influential. These committees now elect their chairs through secret ballots, increasing their independence. Their role in scrutinising government policy has grown stronger.
• Diversity and Representation
Parliament has become more diverse, with a broader representation of ethnicity and gender. This diversity ensures a wider range of perspectives and scrutiny of government actions.
• House of Lords Reform
The House of Lords has seen reforms, particularly with the reduction of hereditary peers. While still unelected, the Lords are now more focused on expertise and scrutiny rather than political affiliation.
• Role in Crisis
Parliament has proven effective in times of national crisis, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, where MPs held the government to account through debates and questions.
• Smooth Governance
The UK avoids the gridlock seen in other democratic systems, such as the US. The fusion of powers allows the government to implement its agenda efficiently, with occasional checks through elections.
Weaknesses of Parliamentary Scrutiny:
• Adversarial Culture
Parliamentary debates are often marked by adversarial language, which can detract from meaningful scrutiny. This style, while traditional, can hinder objective analysis of government policies.
• Voting Process
The absence of permanent electronic voting remains a limitation, as MPs still physically file out to vote, which is inefficient and outdated.
• Limited Influence of Committees
Despite their growing independence, committees lack the power to influence legislation significantly. Governments often ignore committee recommendations, limiting their impact.
• Inability to Resolve Crises
Parliament’s failure to resolve major issues like Brexit highlights its limitations. The Brexit crisis was only resolved after a general election and a government with a large majority, showing parliament’s inability to take decisive action during crises.
• Weakness of the House of Lords
The House of Lords remains undemocratic, with many members being political retirees or defeated MPs. Its role in scrutinising legislation is limited, weakening the overall system of checks and balances.
Conclusion:
Parliamentary scrutiny in the UK has improved, particularly through independent committees and rebellious MPs. However, limitations remain, such as an adversarial culture, the lack of committee power, and parliament’s failure to resolve crises like Brexit. While the system functions well for ensuring governance with occasional checks, it struggles to provide robust, consistent scrutiny of the executive. The Westminster model has evolved, but it still reflects both the strengths and weaknesses of the UK’s constitution.
Parliament summary:
- Parliament comprises the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Commons is the dominant chamber, with debates being chaired by the speaker and party discipline enforced by the whips.
- There have been some recent developments in parliament, most notably partial reform of the Lords.
- There are several hurdles in the legislative procedure for a bill to become law. Backbench MPs have opportunities to influence or introduce legislation in debate or via PMBs.
- Parliament represents the people in several ways and there are three main models of representation: Burkean/trustee, delegate and mandate.
- Parliament is a forum to scrutinise the government and hold it accountable, although party politics often makes these functions less effective.
- Parliamentary committees, both select and public bill, play key roles in the scrutiny of both legislation and policy.
- The opposition holds the executive to account in several ways, including through debates, PMQs and suggesting alternative policies. The Official Opposition acts as a ‘government-in-waiting’.
- Despite some recent changes, to a large extent parliament is only partially effective at scrutinising the executive.
