UK Government; Functions of Parliament - Scrutiny and Opposition Flashcards
1
Q
Scrutiny - Parliamentary Debates; Parliamentary Privilege
A
- This is what protects MPs and peers in parliamentary debates, freeing them from the usual laws of slander and contempt of court - all parliamentary debates are in the public domain, and this means that news outlets can freely report them without the threat of prosecution. It includes freedom of speech and the right of both Houses to regulate their affairs, dating back to the Bill of Rights in 1689
- It has been used on several occasions, such as in 2018 when Lord Peter Hain broke an interim injunction granted by the Court of Appeal to name business person Sir Philip Green as the man behind a court injunction banning a newspaper from naming him, as it had prevented the Daily Telegraph from publishing allegations of sexual and racial harassment that had been made against Green.
2
Q
Scrutiny - Parliamentary Debates; Emergency Debates
A
- These can be granted on the discretion of the speaker, and must be on a ‘specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration’. If granted permission, the MP has 3 minutes to put their request to the House.
- A total of 22 debates took place in the 2017-2019 parliamentary session on a range of topics, such as Brexit and the rollout of Universal Credit, which were highly partisan and strongly political, or the contaminated blood scandal, which was much more non-partisan. This debate concerned patients being given contaminated blood samples during transfusions and going on to contract serious conditions including Hepatitis C and HIV. The debate was moved in July 2017 by Labour MP Diana Johnson, commenting that emergency debates have become an increasingly popular route to get the government to listen and act.
3
Q
Scrutiny - Parliamentary Debates; Backbench / Westminster Hall Debates
A
- The Backbench Business Committee was set up in 2010, having been initially proposed by the Wright Committee in 2009. It gives MPs more opportunities to shape Commons business, deciding the topic of debate on the floor of the Commons and in Westminster Hall for roughly 1 day a week, creating a very different atmosphere for discussion and deliberation in the main chamber. Westminster debates are held 4 days a week, with MPs applying for a debate and all debates are then allocated by a ballot arranged by the Speaker’s Office. Any MP is entitled to attend, there are no votes, but it is an opportunity for MPs to raise matters of concern, including those relating to their local areas.
- An example of this is when Cumbria MP and former LibDem leader Tim Farron in February 2020 raised the topic of support for hill farmers, whilst Mansfield MP Ben Bradley led a debate on education and attainment of white working-class boys.
4
Q
Scrutiny - Parliamentary Debates; E-petitions
A
- Mondays are reserved for discussion of petitions and e-petitions; any petition with more than 100,000 signatures must be considered for debate by the Petitions Committee, with no guarantee of debate.
- At the height of the Coronavirus Pandemic in 2020, several petitions were set up calling for greater government action; one requested for statutory sick pay, gathering 700,000 digital signatures, and another called for the government to scrap parking charges for NHS staff, which received over 415,000 signatures and led to the government finding additional cash for NHS trusts to cover staff costs. In contrast, the government refused to debate the e-petition on sick for the self-employed. While the government responded to both e-petitions directly as opposed to through formal debate in parliament, these examples suggest such mechanisms can influence government policy some of the time.
- On occasion, these debates exercise an indirect influence on government, with over 1 million signatures being collected in early 2017 fo a petition to ban President Trump from making a state visit to the UK; there was a counter-petition in support but was signed by much fewer people, and this was followed by a lively and heated government debate; the visit did take place, but Trump did not visit or address parliament, perhaps as an indirect result of the e-petition and the shared sentiments of many MPs
5
Q
The significance and impact of parliamentary debates as a form of scrutiny
A
The significance and impact of Westminster Hall debates is questionable; similar to select committees, they cannot compel the government to act but only to issue a reply, and debates are often poorly attended
- Few MPs change their minds because of arguments made during a debate. Most have already made up their mind or been instructed on how to vote.
- The government is usually guaranteed to win most Commons votes by virtue of its overall majority and the party whip system.
- The government also possesses an advantage of a hefty payroll vote among MPs from the ruling party, who cannot rebel against the government unless they first resign. The size of the payroll has increased significantly in the last 60-years, from 101 in 1960 to 141 in 2018. (By 2020 it had fallen to 134). Arguably this has helped reduce the ability of MPs from within the governing party to challenge the government.
-> Payroll vote: MPs who hold a government post such as
minister, junior minister or private secretary. They are
guaranteed to vote in support of the government.
Westminster Hall debates are often poorly attended
and have no direct power over government
6
Q
The significance and impact of parliamentary debates as a form of scrutiny pt 2
A
- Finance and money bills are particularly weakly scrutinised or debated. A Democratic Audit report commented in 2018 that ‘Finance debates on the floor of the house are simply general political talk-fests for the government and opposition.’
- A vote on the budget is effectively regarded as a confidence vote in the government, and any rebel MP would lose the whip. Usually, only 4 days are allocated to debating the budget and the debates are effectively an exercise in party political posturing as opposed to rigorous scrutiny of plans for government taxation and spending.
- While debates in the Lord’s can often produce high quality and informed contributions, their power to influence, let alone limit, the government is severely restricted. The Lords often Debate and pass amendments to government bills but results are sporadic. For example, they made five amendments to Johnson’s 2020 brexit bill but not one was agreed to by The Commons.
Overall I would argue that debates are an effective way of translating the concerns of parliament to the PM and scrutinising bills, but they are often directly powerless and are often ineffective due to party whips. It is effective in other ways, but not always as a scrutiny tool; e-petitions are possibly the only partially effective method of inciting direct change, and this is scrutiny outside of parliament, a strength of the scrutiny system (however, a lot of e-petitions are poorly debated or not debated at all).
7
Q
Scrutiny - Parliamentary Questions
A
- One of the most high-profile ways of holding the government to account, and the questions can either be written or asked in the chamber during question time sessions
- In the parliamentary year 2017-2018 over 55,000 questions were asked, with 50,000 being written - the majority of these went to departments running major public services such as health and education, representing an increase of 42% over the previous year; this suggests a superficial growing trend among MPs to interrogate and scrutinise the government
- The most important occasion for oral questions is Prime Minister’s Question Time (PMQs) which take place every Wednesday at 12pm for 30 minutes, with their effectiveness being highly debated
- Backbench MPs from the governing party often use PMQs and ministers’ questions to ask questions deliberately designed to show the government n the best possible light, sometimes known as ‘patsy questions’ as they have no intention of probing the government or being awkward, and are sometimes an opportunity to attack the opposition
8
Q
Scrutiny - Parliamentary Questions Examples
A
- An example of this is when the newly elected Conservative MP for West Bromwich West, Shaun Bailey, asked in March 2020 a question that diminished the Labour party’s actions towards crime and asked the PM for confirmation of his success in the same area
- In addition to the more familiar political ‘Punch and Judy’ show that often constitutes PMQs, there has also been a rise in the last few years in the speaker allowing MPs to ask urgent questions (UQs) of ministers immediately after the usual question time
- MPs must apply to the speaker that morning for permission to ask their UQ later that day, with request usually being granted entirely at the discretion of the speaker
- In the year following the Queen’s Speech, the speaker granted 114 UQs, with topics covering a wide range of domestic and international issues
- These included the case of Naznin Zagahri-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian citizen jailed in Iran, to the publication of the government’s White Paper on immigration, and the cost of policing the visit of President Trump in 2017
9
Q
The effectiveness of PMQs - Strengths
A
- 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, David 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.
- It offers particular opportunities for the leader of the opposition to stake a claim to the premiership by delivering a ‘better’ debating performance. A good example of this is when David Cameron, as newly elected Conservative leader in 2005, famously quipped that Tony Blair “was the future once”.
- It forces the Prime Minister to directly address the 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.
- It is high profile and widely publicised, with clips often featuring in the television news or on social media; improves democratic scrutiny
10
Q
The effectiveness of PMQs - Weaknesses
A
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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 that there was too much political point-scoring as opposed to answering the questions asked.
- 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.
11
Q
Public Bill Committees - Scrutiny
A
- When analysing the legislative stages, members of public bill committees (previously called standing committees) go through legislation line by line and can make changes to the bill. These committees are temporary and only last for the lifetime of the bill. They therefore lack the continuity and accumulated wisdom of the permanent departmental select committees.
- Furthermore, the government always ensures it has a majority of loyal MPs on each public bill committee so any major changes to the overall nature of the bill are extremely unlikely. They are allowed to take oral and written evidence from the public and interested pressure groups. Numbers on each committee can vary but I normally between 16 and 20. The committees are named after the bill they are considering, e.g. the Equality Bill Committee.
- The effectiveness of bill committees is debatable. A 2013 report by the UCL Constitution Unit claimed that ‘parliamentary scrutiny of bills is arguably where the House of Commons is at its weakest, and the committee stage is central to that weakness’.
12
Q
Select Committees
A
- These are probably the most significant of all the parliamentary committees. In 2013, Parliament defined their role as; ‘To hold Ministers and Departments to account for their policy and decision-making and to support the House in its control of the supply of public money and scrutiny of legislation.’
- Select committees check that government and public bodies are doing their job properly and spending taxpayers money efficiently. They do this by launching investigations, calling witnesses, and publishing reports with their findings and key recommendations. In addition they often have a role in scrutinising draft bills before they are formally debated in Parliament.
- The oldest and arguably most important committee, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) dates back to 1857. Its role is to have an overview of how efficiently the government spends money, so it often launches enquiries into major government projects such as the HS2 rail project and the cost of university technical colleges (UTCs). In the case of the latter it investigated why 10 of the 58 UTCs that opened between 2014/15 and 2018/19 had since closed. It is chaired by a senior opposition backbencher. Following the 2019 election, this was Labour MP Meg Hillier.
- Select Committees are active bodies and produced 267 reports in the period 2017 to 19, of which 56 (21%) dealt with Brexit related topics. The issues considered by select committees are wide-ranging. Some deal with failings by government departments/ministers, others with areas of national concern, and some with more low profile but still significant matters. The government must respond formally to Select Committee reports within 60 days. Research suggests that the government accepts around 40% of committee recommendations. The Prime Minister is not exempt from the scrutiny of Select Committees. The Commons Liaison Committee consists of all select committee chairs and questions the Prime Minister on policy matters around three times a year.
13
Q
Select Committees - pt2
A
- In 1979, a more extensive system of departmental select committees was set up. This meant that every government department was shadowed by a select committee. These are often chaired by MPs with a strong background in that field. For example, until 2019, the Health Select Committee was chaired by former GP, Sarah Wollaston. She was succeeded in 2020 by former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt. The chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee from 2017 and re-elected in 2020 was the Conservative MP for Devon, Robert Parish, who hails from a farming background.
- There were a total of 28 select committees in 2020, most (one exception being the Petitions Committee) directly corresponding to government departments. They usually comprise 11 members and the total membership reflects the party balance in the Commons, ensuring the government has a majority on each committee. Since 2010 select committee chairs have been elected by secret ballot of all MPs at the start of each parliamentary session, with membership normally lasting for the rest of that Parliament, giving permanence and stability.
- The chairs are divided up between the parties in advance, so that the choice is between different backbench MPs from the same party. This has considerably reduced the whips’ power and leads to the election of many more independently minded MPs. Elections vary in intensity. In January 2020, while 13 chairs were elected unopposed, for some committees that vote was hotly contested and close. For example, Conservative MP Julian Knight won the select committee chair of the Department for Digital, Culture Media and Sport by just nine votes Several select committees in addition to the PAC are chaired by opposition MPs. For example, following the 2019 election, the Department for Work and Pensions select committee was chaired by labour MP Stephen Timms.
14
Q
Select Committees - pt3
A
- The aim of any select committee is to achieve consensus and unanimity among all of its members, not least so reports have the most impact. Members sit in a horseshoe arrangement as opposed to the more adversarial seating arrangements in the Commons chamber. Despite the government party having a majority on select committees, they can sometimes support opposition party policies. In September 2020, the Treasury Select Committee urged the government to consider extending the Covid-19 furlough scheme, a policy advocated by Labour.
- Many MP’s sit on a Select Committee for lengthy periods of time and therefore often develop more specialist knowledge than those government ministers who are in office for relatively brief periods of time. Since 2003, chairs have been paid an additional salary and have enjoyed a high media profile. This suggests that the select committee route is an increasingly attractive one for those MPs seeking career advancement outside of joining the front bench.
- Committees decide for themselves what issues to investigate and examine. They have considerable powers to summon witnesses and examine restricted documents. Their hearings are often akin to court like interrogations, especially with those they suspect of misleading Parliament or concealing the full truth. Recent high-profile witnesses who have appeared include Sports Direct owner and entrepreneur Mike Ashley, who was forced to answer questions about working practices in his company, and retail magnate Sir Philip Green, who was questioned over the BHS pension scandal.
- They influence government action, legislative programmes, backbenchers use them to push the government into a path of action, puts pressure on the government, forcing the government to be accountable and explain their actions
15
Q
Examples of Select Committees in use
A
- Ministers can also be subjected to tough questioning but they don’t always come off well. For example, former immigration minister and Romsey MP Caroline Nokes appeared visibly irritated when questioned about problems faced by highly skilled migrants in the UK. She was later accused of misleading Parliament with her answers, which appeared to contradict what later emerged from previously written letters. One member of the select committee went on to talk of the Home Office as guilty of ‘shambolic incompetence’. However, in 2020 Nokes was elected chair of the women and equalities committee, which suggests that one poor performance before a select committee is not necessarily a barrier to promotion elsewhere.
- Since 2007 select committees have also had the ability to review major ministerial appointments of those heading quasi government agencies. Out of 59 hearings up to 2017, appointments have divided committees or been rejected 13 times. Some key government posts have been involved. For example, MPs on the Education committee initially rejected the government’s proposed head of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, after a lacklustre performance at their hearing. She was, however, subsequently appointed to the post. In 2017, Charlotte Hogg resigned as deputy governor of the Bank of England two weeks into her job after the Treasury Select Committee criticised the incomplete answers she had given to them.
16
Q
Select Committees and Civil Servants
A
- When evaluating the effectiveness of select committees, it is worth knowing that the position of senior civil servants is a particularly delicate one. They are often summoned to hearings to explain or justify perceived mistakes or failings in their departments. On the one hand, they, like all witnesses, must be honest and not knowingly mislead the committee in their answers. On the other hand, they are also politically neutral so owe a degree of loyalty to their ministerial masters. In other words, they cannot simply blame or criticise the minister for any errors or problems. Guidance for these scenarios are provided for in the Osmotherly Rules.
Key aspects of the rules include the following;
1. The Civil Service code makes it clear that civil servants are accountable to ministers who in turn are accountable to Parliament. So when civil servants give evidence to a select committee they are doing so not in a personal capacity but as representatives of their ministers.
2. They are not to give their personal views your judgements about any particular policy.
3. They are however, personally accountable for the delivery or implementation of government policy and cannot shift any blame back upwards to ministers
4. The rules set out the criteria by which civil servants can refrain from giving evidence, such as on the grounds of national security.
17
Q
Lords Committees
A
- Of the three main types of parliamentary committees, those in the Lords are probably the least significant, partly because the Lords has much less power than the Commons. The Lords select committees do not shadow the work of government departments. Instead, their investigations examine specialist subjects taking particular advantage of the Lords’ breadth of expertise across a wide variety of areas. There are six main permanent committees: 1. European Union Committee 2. Science and Technology Committee 3. Communications Committee 4. Constitution Committee 5. Economic affairs Committee 6. International Relations Committee - In addition they are short-term ad hoc committees set up to deal with specific concerns. Peers put forward proposals for special enquiry committees to the Lord's Liaison Committee, which makes recommendations to the House on which of them should be established. The Lords now typically appoints four special enquiry committees each year.
18
Q
Lords Committees pt2
A
- For example, in May 2020, the Lord’s agreed to establish a COVID-19 committee in order to consider the long-term implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economic and social well-being of the United Kingdom.
- Lords committees work in largely similar ways to select committees. Although they usually comprise 12 not 11 members, and a government does not have a majority on them - reflecting the party representation in the Lords.
- They conduct enquiries, take evidence from witnesses and produce a report with recommendations. As an example in 2014 the Communications Committee produced a report on televised election debates. Among its recommendations was that broadcasters produce a single online portal with details about all the debates and how to access recordings of them.
- Interestingly, this was a report aimed directly at programme makers and not the government. Given controversies over televised debates in subsequent elections, it would be difficult to argue that this report had a profound effect on the conduct of such debates.
19
Q
Other parliamentary committees
A
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.
