UK ST1: Holding Gov. To Account Flashcards
intro
The ability of Parliament to hold the government to account varies and can be limited based on the number of MPs the governing party or parties have. However, there can be a range of effective ways in which parliament can scrutinise the government, such as the Commons Select Committees, PMQs, and the House of Lords. Arguably, this essay will conclude that the most effective of these is the Commons Select Committees.
para 1 - KU
One way the government can be held to account is through committees. This is when small groups of MPs get together to discuss important issues, examine legislation and question government ministers. There are two types of committees: Public Bill Committees which exist for as long as a proposed bill is in parliament and Select Committees which shadow each government department. Some committees will hold investigations into things that have gone wrong and can expose the failings of the government. The government must attend these committee meetings and answer questions which can be quite in depth.
para 1 - example
For example, in 2023 the Privileges Select Committee published a report stating that Boris Johnson misled the House of Commons when he stated COVID rules were followed during a social gathering at No.10 Downing Street. If Boris Johnson had still been an MP at that point (he had already resigned) they would have recommended a 90 day suspension from the House of Commons.
para 1 - A
This shows that committees are effective in holding the government to account as committee meetings are free to watch on UK Parliament TV which means ministers have to work hard to not be embarrassed or make mistakes. Also, Select Committees allow Parliament to consider multiple issues or events at once, encouraging a deeper scrutiny of the government.
para 1 - gov can ignore KU
However, committees are only partly effective at holding the government to account as the Government can choose to ignore committee reccomendations in UK Parliament. This is because the government aren’t forced to take on committees’ recommendations so can completely ignore them. They can also hold back or delay reports produced by committees and release them at a time that better suits the governemnt.
para 1 - gov can ignore example
For example, in 2023 the Government refused to commit to a new strategy in schools on issues of sexual harrasssment and gender-based violence specifically aimed at engaging boys and young men, despite calls in a report from MPs on the Women and Equaltiies Select Committee.
para 1 - E
Overall, the committee system is the most effective way of holding the government to account as it allows for much more thorough inspection of government work and expenditure through examining bills and questioning government departments on their actions.
para 2 - KU
Another way the government can be held to account is through Prime Ministers Questions. This is where the Prime Minister will take questions from MPs and have to defend their government. It happenes every Wednesday for 30 minutes. PMQs is the most watched and well attended session in the parliamentary week, meaning it gets a lot of media attention which highlights where the Government, and the PM in particular, aren’t doing well. The leader of the opposition gets to ask the first question directly. These questions can be on anything so the PM has to be prepared and knowledgeable about all of the actions the government is working on.
para 2 - example
For example, in 2024 Rishi Sunak had to take difficult questions from Keir Starmer on the economy. Keir Starmer said that Liz Truss and the Conservatives crashed the economy and increased mortgage rates for many. Rishi Sunak had to try and defend his Government.
para 2 - A
This is an effective way of holding the government to account as it happens on a weekly basis, meaning the Government can be question regularly which is important as things can change very quickly in politics. PMQs also allows all 650 MPs a chance to be involved and ask the PM questions. Also, it airs live on TV which means that the public can see the answers the PM gives, which can impact how they vote in future elections.
para 2 - MPS belong to leading party KU
However, PMQs are only partly effective in holding the government to account as many MPs will belong to the same political party as the government. This is because the majority of MPs in Parliament will belong to the leading party, meaning that it’s unikely that they will ask difficult or negative questions about the Government and instead might ask ‘nice’ questions that paints the Government in a good light, allowing them to boast about how well they are doing. Also, time can be wasted quite easily.
para 2 - MPs belong to leading party example
For example, Keir Starmer took time to wish the 2023 Eurovision entrant good luck in May 2023.
para 2 - E
Overall, PMQs is a somewhat effective way of holding the government to account. However, it isn‘t as important as committees as it only ocurs for a short amount of time every week, meaning that not a lot of questions can be asked and time can be wasted weekly, which adds up. The Committee system allows time for more detailed questioning on specific issues, making it a more effective way of holding the government accountable.
para 3 - KU
A final way the government can be held to account is through the House of Lords.
This is the second ‘chamber’ in the Houses of Parliament and is made up of around 800 Lords, all of whom are not elected representatives. Their job is to scrutinise all of the bills that the Governemnt is trying to pass into law. They have time to look through these documents in detail and ask for justifications for certain ideas. They can also reject Bills that they believe are inappropriate or not properly thought through.
para 3 - example
For example, Rushi Sunak’s Rwanda bill to send some assylum seekers to Rwanda faced strong criticism during its first debate in the House of Lords. Lord David Blunkett called the bill ‘shoddy and less than this country deservers’ This didn’t make the conservatives look good and meant they needed to work harder to gain political and public support for the bill.
para 3 - A
This is an effective way of holding the government to account as the Lords have their positions for life meaning that, for many of them, there is no pressure to act a certain way to keep their job which can make many Lords less loyal to the parties they belong to and more willing to crticise them. This makes them more willing to reject bills from the House of Commons in order to force the government to rethink their decisions. When the Lords do reject a bill, it gains a lot of media attention which makes the public start to question why. This can put the government under pressure and forces it to go on the defensive which often doesn’t look good
para 3 - not democratic KU
However, the house of Lords is not democratic meaning its ability to scrutinise the government has limits. This is because there are two types of Lords - Hereditary peers who are there because the title has been passed down to them and Life peers who were appointed by the Prime Minister of the day. The more time one party is in power in the Commons, the more Lords they get to appoint into the House of Lords. This means that parties who have reigned for a long period of time (e.g the Conservatives) have mulitple allies in the Lords that could possibly overpower votes on passing Bills.
para 3 - not democratic example
For example, in July 2024 there were 274 Conservative members in the House of Lords and only 172 Labour members.
para 3 - E
Overall, the House of Lords is a somewhat effective way of holding the government to account but it is not as effecrive as the committee system as the Lords is not a democratic chamber. This means that they may be cautious when rejecting Bills or going against the House of Commons too often which could allow the government to get away with more than if the Lords also felt that it had been elected by the people with a right and responsibility to scrutinise the Government. Committees, however, are made up of MPs who were elected by the public which may make it easier for them to have the confidence to critique the government as they know that they were elected by the people and have the ‘right’ to be there.
conclusion
As set out above, PMQs and the House of Lords are both effective ways of scrutinising the government. PMQs is effective as it occurs on a weekly basis which allows for a regular questioning of the Government and also allows every MP an opportunity to be involved and ask questions. The House of Lords is effective because many Lords have been appointed due to their special expertise which means they can use their expert knowledge when scrutinisng legislation to ensure new laws work well. However, as argued, committees are the most effective tool used by MPs and Lords because they allow for an intricate scrutiny of government work and expenditure by 0bills and making amendments to them, and questions government departments on their actions.
