parliament hold govt to account ? Flashcards
(8 cards)
intro-
essay looks at the 3 key ways in which Parl holds govt to account - SCs, ministerial questions and legislative scrutiny
debate theme 1 - Select Committees FOR
SCs look in depth into issues - questioning is calm and measured, scrutiny is therefore a lot more professional and less partisan than PMQs.
since Wright reforms = more independent of govt; SC chairs no longer chosen by whips, allowing prominent BB MPs who oppose govt on some issues to obtain key roles in SCs e.g. Emily Thornberry chair FASC; critiqued govt approach to China; urging stronger action on HR abuses.
- SC work respected as it is evidence-based and hold televised hearings = increase influence, hold govt to account publicly - March 2023 the Privileges SC scrutinised former PM BJ for involvement in Partygate - gained public support
- govt must respond to reports in 8 weeks and so they can sometimes have direct influence on govt policy.
- Liaison Committee directly questions and scrutinises the PM twice a year, directly holding the most powerful figure to account
debate theme 1 - Select Committees AGAINST
majority of SC members are drawn from the governing party and there is a tradition that the influential Treasury, foreign affairs and defense committees are chaired by MPs of the governing party - limits independence and likelihood hold govt account effectively – current Parl = 18/27 SC Chairs are Lab and maj members in each committee = Labour due to 174 maj
- SCs can only cover a limited range of topics in depth, therefore limiting their ability to hold the govt to account across all areas of policy and governance
- SCs power to summon witnesses is considerable but not unlimited - 2013 Home Sec May block HASX from interviewing head of MI5
- govt accepts about 40% SC recommendations, but usually minor changes - influence limited ?
- Summer 2023 govt not respond to Education SC e.g. for additional funding for SEND support.
BJ twice cancelled appointments to attend Liaison Committee and therefore able to avoid scrutiny.
debate theme 2 - legislative scrutiny
FOR
HOLs
- especially in recent years, when the govt has increasingly rushed legislation through the HOCs, the HOLs has played a crucial role in scrutinising and revising legislation, as the govt has less control over the Parliamentary timetable in the Lords
- lords frequently offers technical amendments - ‘amending chamber’ = Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act Oct 2023 = govt accepted 64 HOL amendments to the bill
though the HOLs often backs down if amendments are rejected, however sometimes it doesn’t and takes a stand against a bill when it feels its justified.
- often to protect HRs or in relation to a bill that has garnered sig public backlash/has limited public support - delaying power can be very significant in influencing legislation and holding govt to account, especially in emergencies when govts want to pass laws quickly e.g., in 2001 10 defeats in the HOLs led to govt to remove incitement to religious hatred as an offence from anti-terrorism legislation. the HOLs argued it would’ve threatened rights
BBs-
legislative scrutiny- govts BBs can rebel to defeat govt legislation in the HOCs; increasingly more frequent in recent yrs
- May defeated 33 times when had minority govt; including Brexit Withdrawal Agreement
- Parliament therefore able to half govt to account and tell it to renegotiate a Brexit deal that would gain support of a majority of Parl
debate theme 2 - legislative scrutiny
AGAINST
Parliament’s legislative scrutiny is often ineffective in holding the government to account because the government controls most legislation. For example, in the 2022/23 session, 56 bills were introduced, with 43 (76%) receiving royal assent. Major laws passed include the Illegal Migration Act and Online Safety Act.
Starmer’s government, with a 174-seat majority, has faced no significant defeats, making it unlikely to be defeated this Parliament.
The House of Lords’ scrutiny is limited:
The Parliament Acts (1911, 1949) prevent Lords from rejecting financial bills and allow only a one-year delay on other laws, after which the Commons can force passage (used thrice by Blair, e.g., Hunting Act 2004).
The Salisbury Convention stops the Lords from blocking manifesto-committed legislation.
Legislation is often rushed through the Commons, limiting backbench scrutiny—for example, the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act had only 1 day of Committee scrutiny and skipped the Report stage.
Large Commons majorities mean governments rarely lose votes: Blair was defeated 4 times in 3 terms, Sunak only once as PM.
Paragraph three ➡️ Ministerial Question Time (Especially Prime
Minister’s Questions)
FOR -
At PMQs, the Leader of the Opposition gets 6 questions, and the leader of the 3rd largest party gets 2 questions, allowing them to directly challenge the government and highlight failures.
PMQs forces the government to address concerns from the public, opposition, and backbenchers. For example, on 8 Jan 2025, MP Dianne Abbott raised social housing shortages, forcing government response.
- Some opposition leaders, like Starmer, are effective scrutinisers. On 8 May 2024, Starmer criticised the Safety of Rwanda Bill as a “gimmick,” not an effective deterrant citing 2,400 small boat crossings in 16 days, undermining government claims.
PMQs is televised weekly and is the most watched political event, boosting public engagement and exposing government failures.
- On 8 May 2024, Natalie Elphicke defected from Conservatives to Labour during PMQs, maximising media impact and damaging the government, showing how MPs use PMQs to influence voters.
Misleading Parliament risks huge pressure to resign, ensuring Ministers and the PM stay competent and informed. This accountability reduces chances of incompetent leaders harming their party’s image at PMQs.
Paragraph Three ➡️ Ministerial Question Time (Especially Prime
Minister’s Questions)
AGAINST -
PMQs often provide little effective scrutiny and focus more on partisan point-scoring than detailed government questioning. Ministers, including PMs, frequently dodge questions to deliver soundbites for social media.
For example, on 13 Nov, Starmer dodged Nigel Farage’s question about Iran’s revolutionary guard and joked instead, showing PMQs can lack real accountability.
Many backbenchers ask questions drafted by whips to flatter the government rather than scrutinise it. On 13 Nov 2024, Labour MP Patrick Hurley asked a planted question praising the budget, allowing Starmer to attack the previous government and promote investment.
PMQs is often boisterous parliamentary theatre, which may reduce public trust in politicians. On 24 May 2023, MP Paul Bristow was ejected for heckling.
Scrutiny depends on backbenchers’ and Opposition Leader’s abilities. Kemi Badenoch was criticised in Feb 2025 for failing to challenge the PM on the costly Chagos Islands deal, letting key issues go unanswered.
Some argue PMQs should be scrapped and replaced by more effective scrutiny like the Liaison Committee, which allows deeper questioning of the Prime Minister.
Conclusion-
In conclusion, Parliament is effective at holding the government to account, though it is
certainly more effective at holding weak governments with small majorities to account than
strong governments with big majorities.
The House of Lords in particular is important in providing legislative scrutiny, whilst
ministerial question time is important in forcing the government to account for its decisions
and Select Committees provide effective calm and measured questioning.
