Parliament Holding The Government To Account Effectively Flashcards
(8 cards)
Introduction
Parliament plays a crucial role in scrutinising and holding the government accountable through mechanisms such as PMQs, select committees and debates. However, the extent of its effectiveness is limited as factors like the dominance of the executive and party loyalty can confine and limit scrutiny. Thus, Parliament’s role to hold the government to account is ineffective as it is weakened by executive control and party discipline
PMQs and Debates- Effective check
-it could be argued that Parliament holds the government to account effectively through PMQs and parliamentary debates, which provides opportunities for opposition parties and backbench MPs to challenge the government. PMQs, in particular, force the PM to respond to direct questioning making them publicly accountable. Similarly, debates allows MPs to scrutinise policies and expose government failures.
-on 3rd September 2019, Conservative MP Oliver Letwin requested an emergency debate in the House of Commons to prevent the government from pursuing a no-deal Brexit. Then-speaker, John Bercow, approved the motion, allowing Parliament to seize control of the order paper- a highly unusual move reflecting growing parliamentary resistance to executive dominance. The resulting bill, known as the Benn Act, passed with cross-party support and legally required the government to seek an extension to Brexit negotiation, demonstrating how backbenchers could assert parliamentary authority in a moment of constitutional crisis.
-in January 2022, Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle granted Angela Rayner, deputy leader of the Labour Party, an urgent question on the prime minister concerning reports of illegal gatherings in Downing Street during Covid 19 lockdowns. The question focused on whether the Prime Minister had knowingly broken the rules he had imposed on the public, prompting significant public and political backlash. This urgent question not only forced ministerial accountability on a matter of national outrage, but also demonstrated how MPs can use parliamentary mechanisms to demand immediate answers on issues of public integrity and trust in leadership.
-on 21st May 2025, during Prime Minister’s Questions, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a significant policy renewal regarding winter fuel payments. Facing criticism over the Labour government’s earlier decision to cit these payments for most pensioners. Starmer revealed plans to expand eligibility, acknowledging the ongoing cost-of-living faced by retirees. This U-turn was prompted by mounting pressure and internal party debates, highlighting responsiveness of the government to public and governmental scrutiny. The announcement during PMQs demonstrated the sessions importance as a platform for major policy disclosures and government accountability.
PMQs and Debates not effective
-a more convincing argument is that these mechanisms are largely theatrical rather than meaningful scrutiny, with government MPs using questions to flatter the PM rather than challenge them. Additionally, debates rarely lead to policy changes, as the government usually commands a majority, making it difficult for parliament to alter legislation or hold ministers accountable in a meaningful way.
-PMQs often devolve into theatrical, combative exchanges with limited opportunity for sustained scrutiny or detailed policy discussion. Prime Minister frequently evade direct answers, relying instead on political rhetoric designed to rally their party and grab media headlines. For example, when Jeremy Corbyn asked Theresa May whether she was personally responsible for the destruction of the Windrush generation’s landing cards, she deflected the question and instead shifted blame onto the previous Labour government- highlighting how PMs can use the spotlight to avoid accountability.
-A clear example of weak scrutiny was the 2022 Commons debate on the Energy Bills Support Scheme, where opposition parties criticised the government’s response to the cost-of-living crisis. Despite raising valid concerns about fairness and targeting, the debate resulted in no binding changes to the policy. With the government’s large majority, the opposition’s challenges lacked impact, making the debate largely symbolic.
-Another example is the 2021 parliamentary debate on social care reform, following the government’s announcement of a new Health and Social Care Levy. Opposition MPs criticised the plan for placing an unfair tax burden on working-age people and failing to resolve long-term funding issues. However, despite the scrutiny, the bill passed with minimal changes, revealing how opposition debates often lack the power to alter government-backed legislation.
Role of select committees and effective check
- it could be argued that select committees enhance parliamentary scrutiny by conducting detailed investigations into government policy and administration. committees such as the Public Accounts Committee and the Home Affairs Committee hold ministers to account, often producing reports that expose government failings and recommend improvements. Their cross-party nature means that they are less influenced by party loyalty
Roles of select committees and not effective check
-a more convincing argument is that select committees lack enforcement power, meaning their effectiveness is limited. While they can highlight issues and make recommendations, the government is not obliged to implement them. Ministers can refuse to appear before committees or provide vague and evasive answers, reducing the effectiveness of scrutiny. Additionally the dominance of the governing party on committees can limit the extent of criticism
Party loyalty, executive dominance and independence- effective check on executive power
-it could be argued that individual MPs and peers effectively challenge the government, particularly through rebellions and scrutiny in the house of lords. Backbench Rebellions, such as those on Brexit, have demonstrated that Parliament can constrain the government. The House of Lords, with its expertise and independence from party politics also plays a key role in revising and amending legislation.
-Baroness Meacher, led a successful House of Lords Motion to delay and to force reconsideration of the government’s plan to cut tax credits for low-income families, arguing that it disproportionately impacted the poor working class. This intervention profoundly demonstrates the effective and potent role of checking and revising secondary legislation to ensure that it does not infringe or harm vulnerable citizens in society.
- in March 2016, Prime Minister David Cameron suffered a significant defeat in the House of Commons over plans to extend Sunday trading hours, a move intended to liberalise retail laws. The government was defeated by 31 votes, as Labour and SNP MPs joined forces with conservative backbench rebells, including faith-based and traditionalist Tories concerned about family and worker rights. This rare loss demonstrated that effective parliamentary scrutiny is possible when a united opposition aligns with government dissenters, showing how cross-party alliances can successfully block executive proposals.
-a recent example of a government defeats requiring both opposition unity and internal rebellion occurred in September 2024, when prime Minister faced significant dissent over proposed cuts to winter fuel payments. Although the Labour Government ultimately passed the measure, the vote exposed deep divisions within the party, with only one Labour MP voting against the plan, while many others abstained, highlighting internal discontent. This episode underscored how a coordinated opposition and internal party dissent can challenge government proposals, even if they do not always result in outright defeats.
Party loyalty, executive dominance, independence- not effective check on executive power.
- a more convincing argument is that the executive’s dominance over Parliament undermines its ability to hold the government to account. Party whips exert significant control over MPs discouraging them from rebelling. The government’s majority in the Commons means it can usually pass legislation without major difficulty. Additionally, the PM’s power to appoint peers and control the legislative agenda further reduces the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny
-In September 2019, 21 Conservative MPs were expelled from the party by Boris Johnson for voting against the government to block a no-deal Brexit. These MPs supported the Benn Act, which forced the Prime Minister to request an extension to the Brexit deadline, prioritising what they believed was in the national interest. Their removal showed how party discipline can override MPs’ personal convictions and constituency concerns, limiting their ability to act independently.
-in July 2024, seven Labour MPs were suspended from the party for voting against the government stance on the two-child benefit cap, supporting an amendment to scrap the policy. This incident underscores the pressure MPs face to adhere to party lines, even when such positions may conflict with their constituent’s interests or personal convictions. The enforcement of party discipline can thus limit MPs’ ability to represent their electorate effectively.
-most legislation is initiated by the government and there is limited opportunity for backbench and opposition MPs to propose measures of their own. They usually react to measures put before the executive, rather than develop its own legislative proposals and it is rarely able to defeats or significantly amend legislation. Between 2015 and 2024 general elections, conservative backbench MP introduced 168 private member bills, but only one became law.
Conclusion
While Parliament has mechanisms to hold the government accountable, such as PMQs, select committees and debates, their impact is often limited by executive dominance, party loyalty and a lack of enforcement power. Although scrutiny does occur, it is rarely strong enough to significantly challenge the government, making Parliament’s accountability function weaker than it appears.
