To what extent can Parliament hold the government to account? Flashcards
Introduction
There are many ways in which the parliament can hold the government to account. This essay will provide a detailed analysis on voting and debating, House of Lords, prime ministers question time and select committees which are all ways of the parliament attempting to hold the government to account. Although all of these factors can scrutinise the government to some extent in this essay it will be argued that House of Lords is the most effective way of holding the government to account. This is because the House of Lords consists of expert lords who have no constituency and usually a lot of life experience. There is no majority govt and the whip system does not exist, so MPs are not restricted to voting a certain way.
House of Lords
The first way in which the parliament can hold the govt to account is by the House of Lords. The vast majority of new peers are appointed to the House of Lords by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister and the House of Lords appointment commission keep their seat in House of Lords until they die. Expert lords who have no constituency usually have a lot of experience. Many regular MPs do not have life experience. Having real life experience means they will be better at scrutinising the bills of the govt. this is because MPs who have no constituency will have more time to look into the bills and pay more attention. The House of Lords often makes an important contribution to improving Bills. For example, in 2015 the Lords successfully introduced an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to make ‘revenge porn’ a criminal offence. The whip system does not exist in the House of Lords because they keep their job for life meaning they will not be forced to go independent. No consequences for voting against the government means members of the House of Lords will take more risks if they are not restricted to voting as the party wants them to this shows that they are more likely to scrutinise the government. There also isn’t a majority the largest party in the House of Lords is conservative but despite being the largest, they are over 100 away from a majority. This is important because majorities make scrutiny very hard. in the House of Lords as there is no majority the govt side can often be out voted - such as in the current session where there’s been over 200 times the govt has lost. However, the House of Lords cannot completely block a Bill which has been approved by the House of Commons from being passed, but instead only have the power to delay it by a year. If the Bill is re-introduced and passed again by the House of Commons, then it will become law despite opposition from the House of Lords. For example, in 2003 the House of Lords voted against the Hunting Bill, but it was re-introduced in the House of Commons a year later and then became an Act of Parliament. This is not as effective as it means eventually the House of Commons will always get their way.
Voting and debating
Another way in which the parliament can hold the govt to account is by the process of voting and debating. However, it is not always successful due to govt majority. The most common type of parliament is when there is a government majority. Only once in the last 30 years has there been a minority government. Government majority is when the opposition is outnumbered by the government. Due to this the likelihood of proper scrutiny is very slim because chances of govt defeat are low. For example, the labour govt suffered no govt defeats between 1997 + 2005. This shows us that the circumstances when scrutiny by voting is effective doesn’t exist very often. The opposition is normally at another disadvantage. The opposition to the govt is made up of more than one party. The two largest opposition parties are labour with 199 MPs and SNP with 43 MPs along with MPs from a variety of other parties. As a result of the opposition being divided parties will very often not agree with each other, in order to defeat the govt they would need to work together but it is highly likely this won’t happen. So realistically the only way the govt loses a vote is if some of its own backbench MPs votes against them however the govt has a way of preventing that the whip system. The whip system is used by parties to prevent backbench rebellion. Whips may promise MPs will be rewarded for their loyalty and if this does not work the consequence of backbench rebellion will be losing the whip and endangering their future career prospects. This means voting and debating is not effective as the govt. is in a much stronger position and Parliament’s ability to hold the govt. To account is once again limited.
Prime ministers question time
Another way in which the parliament can hold the govt to account is through prime minister’s question time. PMQs takes place every Wednesday and is an opportunity for MPs to directly challenge the Prime Minister. As PMQs tends to receive significant media attention, it can be an effective way of scrutinising govt. policy. Very occasionally issues highlighted a PMQs can have an impact on govt. policy. In 2018 the govt. announced that UK citizenship fees and language tests will be waived for the Windrush generation after the issue has been heavily scrutinised at PMQs. However, scrutiny is argued to be limited because no supplementary (follow-up) questions are allowed to be asked, with the exception of the Leader of the Opposition (who can ask 6), which often makes it easy for the PM to avoid properly answering difficult questions. In addition, much of PMQs gets wasted by many ‘planted’ questions from MPs in the governing party in which the questions and the PM’s responses are scripted. The aim of these questions is to praise the work of the govt. rather than scrutinising it. For example, in January 2020 a Conservative MP asked if the PM agreed that leaving the EU is a great opportunity for the country as we will finally control our laws, our borders and our money?Furthermore, PMQs has been increasingly regarded by MPs and the media as a pantomime rather than a genuine opportunity to scrutinise the govt making it ineffective.
Select committees
Another way in which the parliament can hold the govt to account is through select committees. Select Committees can hold the govt. to account by questioning govt. ministers, civil servants, and relevant people from outside of Parliament. Brexit Select Committee has played a key role in scrutinising the govt’s Brexit plans, including in 2017 forcing former Brexit Secretary, David Davis, into admitting that the govt. had not undertaken an assessment into the economic impact of Brexit, which they later carried out as a result of this. Select Committees produce reports on the performance of govt. departments and recommendations for changes to policy. However, the govt. does not have to act upon a committee’s recommendations. For example, in 2012 the Work & Pensions Select Committee reported that Universal Credit would have a significantly negative impact on severely disabled people; and in 2015 the Foreign Affairs Select Committee advised against air strikes in Syria. Yet the govt. decided to ignore the select committees’ recommendations on both these occasions. This shows that select committees is a poor way of scrutinising the govt as they do not have to address problems and issues select committee members have.
Conclusion
In conclusion the factors listed above are all significantly poor at holding the govt to account. This is because voting and debating usually has a majority meaning the opposition are outnumbered and the govt can do as they please. Prime ministers question time is seen as a pantomime because no supplementary questions can be asked and planted questions are asked to praise the work of the govt. select committees may highlight concerns in the work of the govt however the govt can simply ignore this. The House of Lords is more effective as it allows MPs with real life experience to vote independently and not be constrained to the government’s preference which makes scrutiny less difficult.
