⭐️ETV that parliament holds the government to account effectively

Question 1

Para headings & LOA

Answer 1

• 1. Select committees
• 2. PMQs
• 3. Legislative scrutiny
     LOA: Agree it is effective

Question 2

Para 1: select committees
Disagree- they don’t

Answer 2

Independence
* maj. members drawn from governing party
* tradition = influential treasury, foreign affairs & defence committees chaired by MPs of governing party
* EXAMPLE: Apr 2025 all chaired by Lab. MPs e.g. Emily Thornberry for foreign affairs

Liaison comittee
* BoJo thrice cancelled appointments to attened the LC > able to avoid scrutiny, especially amid Brexit

Question 3

Para 1: select committees
Agree- they do

Answer 3

Independence
* since the Wright Reforms- Select Committee chairs no longer chosen by whips > prominent backbench MPs who oppose gov. on some issues can obtain key roles in SCs
* EXAMPLE: Caroline Nokes (Cons. bb & former immig. minister) = chair of the Women & Equalities Committee - has consistenly criticised the gov (espec. plans to house asylum seekers in barracks).

Liaison comittee
* Directly questions & scrutinises the PM twice a year > holding most powerful figure in gov. to account
* very rare to have outright refusals due to the crtiticism, BoJo postponed & did appear in 2021

Question 4

Para 2: PMQs
Disagree- they don’t

Answer 4

Scrutiny
* little effective scrutiny more focus on **partisan political point scoring **
* political answers > deflect & get soundbites for the media rather than honesty
* many gov. backbenchers’ questions drafted by whips to flatter rather than scrutinise gov. > ‘does the gov. agree that the gov. is doing a great job in this area?’

Accountability/ trust
* boisterous & more parliamentray theatre than effective scrutiny
* -tive view on politicians to public > lowering trust in them & the pol. process
* dependent on abilities of BBs & Leader of Opp. > Corbyn was a particularly poor performer

Question 5

Para 2: PMQs
Agree- they do

Answer 5

Scrutiny
* Leader Opp. = 6 Qs, Leader of 3rd party = 2 Qs > oppurtunity to get direct response from gov. > expose gov. failure & suggest why they’d be more effective
* gov. forced to address concerns of the public, opposition & BBs
* EXAMPLE: Corbyn had a habit of asking **Qs from members of the public **

Accountability/ trust
* misleading HOC > pressure to resign > forces Ministers & PM to be competent, on top of their policy brief & the work of their dep.
* accountabilty to Parl. & decreases likelihood that incompetent party leaders (who favour pol. demagoguery over rational argument) will lead a major pary into an election > as they would embarrass & harm party’s image every Wed. at PMQs

Question 6

Para 3: Legislative scrutiny
Disagree- they don’t

Answer 6

HOL
* lack of legislative powers
* Parl. Acts 1911 & 1949 > can’t vote down financial bills, can delay leg. for 1 yr only
* EXAMPLE: the above was used 3 times in Blair gov. > 1 to pass the Hunting Act 2004
* Salisbury Convention > can’t vote down leg. promised in gov. manifesto

Backbenchers
* gov. has ctrl. over most of the Parliamentray timetable > increasingly rushed leg. through HOC > limiting effective leg. scrutiny from BBs
* EXAMPLE: 2023 Illegal Migration Bill granted just 2 days of scrutiny in the Committe of the Whole House

Question 7

Para 3: Legislative scrutiny

Answer 7

HOL
* gov. has less ctrl. over parliamentray timetable in HOL
* frequently offer technical amendments to improve & fix bills] ‘amending chamber’ - gov. & HOC accept most
* EXAMPLE: Amendment to 2018 EU Withdrawal Bill - made sure UK legally able to participate in EU agencies if chooses
* Stand against HOC bill when justified > protect HR or a bill w limited public support > delaying pwr. = signif. especially in emergencies when govs. want to pass laws quickly.

Backbenchers
* can rebel to defeat gov. leg. in HOC - increasing frequency
* EXAMPLE: May’s Brexit deal rejected 3 times - most in Jan 2019 lost by 230 votes (biggest Commons defeat for a sitting government in UK history) > dozens Cons. rebelled inc. BoJo (Brexiteer) & Dominic Grieve (remainer)

Question 8

Public bill committees do:

Answer 8

• role in amending legislation > getting the gov. to think again.
• examine a bill line by line and suggest amendments - many ways effective during the legislative process.
• Most bills sent to a committee stage when group of at least 11 MP’s consider the proposed act clause by clause, line by line, in detail.
• The ministers attending come from the department involved and are matched by the shadow Cabinet frontbencher that parallel them.

Question 9

Publci bill committees don’t:

Answer 9

• scrutiny of legislation via partisan whipped bill committees - many inexpert MP’s just voting along a party line
• whips can completely dominate proceedings > membership over 99% of ministerial recommendations succeed BUT success rate for non gov. amendment amendments = 1% or below
• involved at the later stages of the leg. process - already been a Commons vote at the second reading > bill is already going to become law > just a question of whether there can be small amendments made to it while these committees are able to table amendments.
• ordinary members of it have very little Expertise > these bills, these committees are only set up when there is a bill going before Parl. and then they are disbanded, unlike select committees which are permanent, allowing those members who serve for a long time on those committees to build up a real knowledge of their subject area
• In 2011 Sarah Williston, a Conservative backbench MP who worked for 24 years as a doctor was prevented from sitting on the public bill committee scrutinized changes, scrutinizing changes to the NHS, she told a newspaper