Structure And Role Of Parliamnet Flashcards

Question

Explain and analyse Burkean theory.

Answer 1

The Burkean theory comes from 18th-century political thinker and MP Edmund Burke. In 1774, he argued that an MP owes constituents their judgement, not just their obedience, stating: “Your representative owes you..his judgement” Burke believed MPs should consider their constituents’ views but ultimately use their own knowledge and experience to act in the public interest. This contrasts with the delegate model, where MPs simply mirror their constituents’ opinions. Though weakened by party loyalty and the whipping system, trustee representation still appears occasionally. For example, Nick Boles, former Conservative MP for Grantham and Stamford, represented a Leave-voting constituency but supported Remain and voted against his party on Brexit. Critics argued he prioritized the national interest over party or constituency opinion. Another example is ‘votes of conscience’, where MPs vote based on personal beliefs rather than party lines. These votes, often on moral issues like abortion or assisted dying, are typically unwhipped. A key case was the 2013 same-sex marriage vote, where over half of Conservative MPs either rebelled or abstained, despite then-Prime Minister David Cameron backing the bill. Since no major English party had pledged support for same-sex marriage in their 2010 manifestos, MPs felt free to vote based on personal conviction rather than party commitments.

Answer 2

The delegate theory views MPs as mouthpieces for their constituents, acting on their wishes rather than personal judgement. However, it is difficult to apply in practice—how does an MP determine the majority view on a given issue? Should they rely on letters, emails, focus groups, or what if opinion is evenly split? Despite these challenges, some MPs have followed this model. In 2015, Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith promised Richmond Park voters he would resign if the government backed a third runway at Heathrow. When the government supported the plan, he resigned in 2016, ran as an independent, and lost to the Liberal Democrats in the by-election. Similarly, Stephen Lloyd, Liberal Democrat MP for Eastbourne, represented a Leave-voting seat but personally opposed Brexit. However, in 2017, he pledged to support Brexit in Commons votes to honour the referendum result. Against his own views and party policy, he kept his word, resigning the Lib Dem whip in the process. He lost his seat in 2019. These cases suggest that voters don’t always reward MPs who strictly act as delegates, even when they keep their promises.

Answer 3

The mandate theory argues that MPs are elected primarily to implement their party’s manifesto, not to act independently. The idea is that voters elect a party, not an individual, so MPs owe their loyalty to their party once in parliament. Evidence for this theory comes from cases where MPs leave their party mid-term and then stand for re-election as independents or for a different party—they almost always lose. For example, in 2019, long-serving and well-respected MP Frank Field left Labour and stood as an independent in his safe Labour seat of Birkenhead, only to be defeated. Similarly, former Conservative MP Anne Milton ran as an independent in Guildford and also lost. A rare exception was Douglas Carswell, who was elected as a Conservative MP for Clacton, defected to UKIP in 2014, resigned, and won both the by-election and the 2015 general election under UKIP. However, this was in a strong Leave constituency, suggesting voters were still supporting the same policies rather than simply the party label. The mandate theory has limitations, especially when new issues arise that weren’t in the manifesto. For example, in 2003, 139 Labour MPs rebelled against Tony Blair’s decision to invade Iraq, arguing they had the right to exercise personal judgement since the issue had not been in Labour’s 2001 manifesto. Overall, while all three representation theories influence MPs’ voting, the mandate model usually prevails due to the strength of party politics. However, MPs may break from their party when local opinion strongly differs or when controversial new issues emerge between elections.

Answer 4

One of parliament’s key roles, alongside passing laws and representing voters, is scrutinising the government—holding it to account by ensuring its laws are fit for purpose and that ministers explain and defend their policies. This is known as scrutiny of the executive and is part of parliament’s deliberative function. Opposition parties play a crucial role in this, but government backbenchers can also challenge their own party, especially when it is divided or pursuing a controversial policy. However, how effectively parliament performs this role is widely debated. The main methods of scrutiny include: • Debates in the chamber • Parliamentary questions (including Prime Minister’s Questions) • Parliamentary committees (both standing and select committees) These mechanisms ensure that government actions are questioned, critiqued, and justified, strengthening democratic accountability.

Answer 5

CASE STUDY: Parliamentary Debate Over Syrian Air Strikes In August 2013, amid evidence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was using chemical weapons against civilians, Prime Minister David Cameron proposed airstrikes against Assad’s forces to deter further use of these illegal weapons. Despite the coalition government usually holding a reliable Commons majority, Cameron was defeated 285-272, with 30 Conservative and nine Liberal Democrat MPs voting against the motion. The debate was highly charged, with many MPs recalling the Iraq War and questioning intelligence reports. Labour leader Ed Miliband stated that the public “wanted us to learn the lessons” of Iraq. Conservative MP David Davis warned, “Our intelligence as it stands might just be wrong, because it was before, and we have got to be very, very hard in testing it.” Similarly, Tory MP Cheryl Gillan declared, “I cannot sit in this House and be duped again.” Cameron, using emotional language to justify intervention, urged MPs to confront the horrors of chemical warfare: “There are pictures of bodies with symptoms consistent with that of nerve agent exposure, including muscle spasms and foaming at the nose and mouth. I believe that anyone in this chamber who has not seen these videos should force themselves to watch them.” This defeat was significant, as it demonstrated parliament checking the power of the government. Following the vote, Cameron acknowledged parliament’s stance: “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.” By rejecting the motion, parliament took the lead in shaping foreign policy, which traditionally falls under prime ministerial prerogative powers. While there is no legal requirement for parliamentary approval of military action, recent convention has led prime ministers to seek Commons support. This was evident in December 2015, when MPs voted to support airstrikes against Islamic State (IS) targets in Syria. Similarly, in September 2014, the Commons overwhelmingly backed airstrikes against IS in Iraq, voting 524-43. This shift reflected changing public sentiment, particularly after the November 2015 Paris attacks, where nine IS-linked suicide bombers killed 130 civilians. This case highlights how parliament’s stance on military intervention can change based on national mood and context, demonstrating its evolving role in holding the government to account.

Answer 6

In parliamentary debates, MPs and peers are protected by parliamentary privilege, a right established by the 1689 Bill of Rights. This grants them freedom of speech and the ability of both Houses of Parliament to regulate their own affairs without the usual laws of slander and contempt of court. When speaking in the Palace of Westminster, MPs and peers are immune from laws on slander and contempt of court, allowing them to raise issues without fear of legal repercussions. Since all parliamentary debates are publicly accessible, news outlets can freely report on them without the threat of prosecution. This principle has been used in several high-profile cases, most notably in 2018, when Lord Peter Hain broke an interim injunction granted by the Court of Appeal to name businessman Sir Philip Green as the subject of a legal order preventing a newspaper from identifying him. The injunction had stopped the Daily Telegraph from publishing allegations of sexual and racial harassment against Green. This case demonstrates how parliamentary privilege allows MPs and peers to disclose information in the public interest, even when legal restrictions apply outside Parliament.

Answer 7

MPs can request emergency debates, which the Speaker grants at their discretion if the topic is a specific and urgent matter requiring immediate attention. If approved, the MP has three minutes to present their case to the House. During the 2017–19 parliamentary session, 22 emergency debates took place on various issues. Some, like Brexit and the rollout of Universal Credit, were highly political and partisan, while others were more neutral. A key example of a non-partisan emergency debate was the contaminated blood scandal, where patients contracted hepatitis C and HIV from infected blood transfusions. In July 2017, Labour MP Diana Johnson called for an emergency debate on the issue. That same day, Downing Street announced a full inquiry, highlighting how emergency debates can be an effective way to pressure the government into action.

Answer 8

In Parliamentary Debate and Scrutiny Beyond high-profile debates like Syrian air strikes and Brexit, backbench MPs now have more opportunities to scrutinise the government. One major reform was the Backbench Business Committee, set up in 2010 following the Wright Committee’s 2009 proposals. It gives MPs greater control over Commons business, deciding debate topics for one day per week in the Commons and Westminster Hall. Westminster Hall debates, held four days a week, provide a more informal setting for discussion. MPs apply for debate slots through a ballot arranged by the Speaker’s Office. There are no votes, but MPs use this platform to raise constituency issues. For example, on 12 February 2020, Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Cumbria) led a debate on support for hill farmers, while Ben Bradley (Conservative, Mansfield) focused on the education and attainment of white working-class boys. Petitions and E-Petitions Mondays are reserved for debates on petitions, including e-petitions. Any petition with over 100,000 signatures is considered for debate, though not guaranteed. During the COVID-19 pandemic, several high-profile petitions gained traction: • Self-employed statutory sick pay – Nearly 700,000 signatures, but ultimately rejected by the government. • Scrapping NHS staff parking charges – Over 415,000 signatures, leading to extra government funding for NHS trusts to cover costs. Though e-petitions do not force action, they sometimes influence policy, as seen with NHS parking fees. Effectiveness of Westminster Hall Debates While Westminster Hall debates provide a platform for discussion, their impact is limited. Like select committees, they can only demand a government response, not enforce action. Debates are often poorly attended. However, on occasion, they exert indirect influence. In 2017, over 1 million people signed a petition to ban Donald Trump from making a state visit to the UK, far outnumbering a counter-petition in support. The heated debate in Parliament didn’t stop the visit but may have contributed to Trump not addressing Parliament, reflecting MPs’ opposition.

Answer 9

Conclusions on the Importance of Parliamentary Debates While debates are a key part of parliamentary democracy, their actual impact in checking and scrutinising the government is often limited. • Most MPs do not change their minds during debates, having already decided or been instructed on how to vote. • The government usually wins votes due to its overall majority and the party whip system. • The payroll vote, consisting of MPs in government positions who must support the government unless they resign, further strengthens the executive’s position. The number of payroll MPs has grown significantly—from 101 in 1960 to 141 in 2018, though it fell slightly to 134 in 2020. This reduces internal rebellion within the governing party. • Westminster Hall debates are often poorly attended and have no direct power over government decisions. Weakness of Budget and Finance Debates • Finance and money bills receive little scrutiny. A 2018 Democratic Audit report described finance debates as ‘general political talk-fests’ rather than serious scrutiny of taxation and spending plans. • A budget vote is treated as a confidence vote—any MP who rebels risks losing the whip. • Only four days are usually allocated to budget debates, which often become party-political exercises rather than detailed financial examination. Limited Influence of Lords Debates • While Lords debates often feature high-quality and informed contributions, their power to challenge government policy is weak. • The Lords frequently propose amendments, but these are often rejected by the Commons. • For example, during Boris Johnson’s 2020 Brexit Bill, the Lords proposed five amendments, including the Dubs amendment (allowing child refugees to reunite with families in the UK post-Brexit). None were accepted by the Commons. Overall Although parliamentary debates provide opportunities for discussion, their ability to change government policy or hold the executive accountable remains limited, especially when the government commands a strong majority.

Answer 10

Parliamentary questions are a high-profile way of holding the government to account. These can be written or oral, with most being written. In 2017–18, MPs asked over 55,000 questions, with over 50,000 submitted in writing. The majority were directed at departments managing key public services like health and education. This marked a 42% increase from the previous year, suggesting a growing tendency among MPs to question the government. Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) The most notable oral questioning session is Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), held every Wednesday at noon for 30 minutes. However, its effectiveness is widely debated. • Government backbenchers often use PMQs to ask ‘patsy’ questions—softball questions designed to praise the government rather than scrutinise it. • These questions sometimes attack the opposition rather than challenge government policy. For example, at PMQs in March 2020, newly elected Conservative MP Shaun Bailey asked Boris Johnson: “Communities like mine in West Bromwich West are grateful for this government’s commitment to 366 police officers for the West Midlands. Will my Right Hon. Friend reaffirm that, unlike the Labour police and crime commissioner, who is decimating communities like mine in Tipton with the closure of our police station, this government is committed to keep our communities safe through investment in the police and tougher sentences for criminals?” This type of question does little to scrutinise the government and instead serves as a political statement. While parliamentary questions provide a formal mechanism for accountability, their effectiveness varies. Written questions allow for detailed scrutiny, but PMQs often become a political spectacle, with backbenchers using them to reinforce party lines rather than genuinely interrogate the government.

Answer 11

**Evidence for PMQs as an effective way of checking the government:** 1. It is high profile and widely publicised, with clips often featuring in the television news or on social media. 2. It forces the prime minister to directly address 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. 3. It offers particular opportunities for the leader of the opposition to stake a claim to the premiership by delivering a ‘better’ debating performance. 4. A good example is of David Cameron who, as newly elected Conservative leader in 2005, famously quipped that Tony Blair ‘was the future once’. 5. 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, 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. **Evidence against PMQs as an effective way of checking the government** 1. 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. 2. 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.’ 3. 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 there was too much party political point-scoring as opposed to answering the questions asked. 4. 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.

Answer 12

Beyond the theatrical clashes of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), MPs have increasingly used Urgent Questions (UQs) to hold ministers to account. • MPs apply to the Speaker on the morning of the session, requesting permission to ask a UQ later that day. • The Speaker decides which requests are granted, meaning UQs are at their discretion. • Following the 2017 Queen’s Speech, 114 UQs were granted in just one year. UQs have covered a wide range of issues, both domestic and international. Examples include: • The case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian citizen jailed in Iran. • The publication of the government’s White Paper on immigration. • The cost of policing President Trump’s UK visit. Conclusion UQs offer a more immediate and flexible form of scrutiny than standard parliamentary questions. While they rely on the Speaker’s discretion, their increased use suggests a growing demand for ministers to respond to urgent and high-profile issues in real time.

Answer 13

There are three main types of parliamentary committee, all of which play a part in scrutinising the government. They are: 1. public bill committees 2. select committees 3. Lords committees

Answer 14

Public Bill Committees (formerly known as standing committees) examine legislation line by line and can propose changes. However, their effectiveness is questionable. • Temporary Nature – Committees only exist for the duration of the bill, unlike permanent select committees, meaning they lack continuity and expertise. • Government Control – The ruling party always holds a majority, making significant amendments unlikely. • External Input – They can take oral and written evidence from the public and pressure groups. • Size & Structure – Typically, they have 16 to 20 MPs and are named after the bill they examine (e.g. the Equality Bill Committee). Effectiveness in Question The UCL Constitution Unit (2013) argued that bill scrutiny is Parliament’s weakest function, stating: “Parliamentary scrutiny of bills is arguably where the House of Commons is at its weakest — and the committee stage is central to that weakness.” With the government ensuring control over these committees, their ability to meaningfully challenge legislation remains limited.

Answer 15

Advantages 1. Detailed Scrutiny – MPs examine legislation in greater detail than in general debates. 2. Bipartisan Oversight – Committees have two joint chairs, one from the governing party and one from the Official Opposition. 3. Effective Changes – They can make meaningful amendments. For example, during scrutiny of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, additional safeguards were added to protect journalists. 4. Public & Expert Input – Committees call for outside evidence before full scrutiny begins. Witnesses include pressure groups, individuals, and experts. For example, environmental activist George Monbiot gave oral evidence to the 2019–21 Environment Bill Committee. 5. Ministerial Involvement – Committees usually include a relevant government minister. The 2019–21 Environment Bill Committee had Rebecca Pow, a junior DEFRA minister. Disadvantages 1. Government Dominance – Membership is proportional to party strength, so the government always holds a majority. 2. Limited Influence – Major amendments are rare; only 0.5% of opposition amendments are accepted. 3. Lack of Expertise – Committees are temporary, so MPs don’t develop long-term expertise. Only 8% of bill committee members also sit on the relevant departmental select committee. 4. Party Control – Membership is decided by party whips, meaning loyalists are favoured over independent-minded MPs. While bill committees offer a platform for scrutiny and public input, their temporary nature and government control limit their ability to make substantial changes.

Answer 16

1) Role and Function of Select Committees Select committees play a crucial role in holding the government to account by scrutinising policy decisions, government spending, and legislation. They conduct investigations, call witnesses, and publish reports with key recommendations. In addition to their general oversight, they also review draft bills before they are formally debated in Parliament. 2) The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) One of the most significant select committees is the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which has scrutinised government spending since 1857. It investigates major projects such as HS2 and the financial sustainability of University Technical Colleges (UTCs), 10 of which closed between 2014 and 2019. Unlike most committees, the PAC is chaired by a senior opposition backbencher—following the 2019 election, this role was held by Labour MP Meg Hillier. 3) Departmental Select Committees The modern system of departmental select committees was introduced in 1979, ensuring that every government department is shadowed by a corresponding committee. These committees are often chaired by MPs with expertise in their respective policy areas. For example: • The Health Select Committee was chaired by former GP Sarah Wollaston before 2019 and later by ex-Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt. • The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired since 2017 by Robert Parish, a Conservative MP from a farming background. By 2020, there were 28 select committees, most of which corresponded directly to government departments, with the Petitions Committee being a notable exception.

Answer 17

Role and Function of Select Committees Select committees play a crucial role in holding the government to account by scrutinising policy decisions, government spending, and legislation. They conduct investigations, call witnesses, and publish reports with key recommendations. In addition to their general oversight, they also review draft bills before they are formally debated in Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) One of the most significant select committees is the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which has scrutinised government spending since 1857. It investigates major projects such as HS2 and the financial sustainability of University Technical Colleges (UTCs), 10 of which closed between 2014 and 2019. Unlike most committees, the PAC is chaired by a senior opposition backbencher—following the 2019 election, this role was held by Labour MP Meg Hillier. Departmental Select Committees The modern system of departmental select committees was introduced in 1979, ensuring that every government department is shadowed by a corresponding committee. These committees are often chaired by MPs with expertise in their respective policy areas. For example: • The Health Select Committee was chaired by former GP Sarah Wollaston before 2019 and later by ex-Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt. • The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired since 2017 by Robert Parish, a Conservative MP from a farming background. By 2020, there were 28 select committees, most of which corresponded directly to government departments, with the Petitions Committee being a notable exception. Membership and Election of Chairs Committee membership reflects party balance in the House of Commons, meaning the government typically holds a majority. However, since 2010, committee chairs have been elected by a secret ballot of all MPs at the start of each parliamentary session. This limits the influence of party whips and ensures that some committees are chaired by opposition MPs. In January 2020, while 13 committee chairs were elected unopposed, some positions were highly contested—Julian Knight won the chair of the DCMS Committee by just nine votes. Despite the government’s majority, select committees do not always follow party lines; for instance, in 2020, the Treasury Select Committee supported extending the COVID-19 furlough scheme, a policy backed by Labour. Power and Influence of Select Committees A key strength of select committees is that MPs often serve on them for extended periods, allowing them to develop specialist knowledge, sometimes exceeding that of government ministers, who typically rotate through roles more quickly. Since 2003, committee chairs have been given an additional salary and enjoy a high media profile, making committee work an attractive career path for ambitious MPs. Committees set their own agendas, choosing which topics to investigate and who to call as witnesses. They have significant authority to summon individuals for questioning, often subjecting high-profile figures to intense scrutiny. Examples include: • Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley, forced to answer questions about poor working conditions. • Retail magnate Sir Philip Green, interrogated over the BHS pensions scandal. • Former Immigration Minister Caroline Nokes, who appeared visibly irritated when questioned about issues faced by highly skilled migrants. She was later accused of misleading Parliament but was still elected chair of the Women and Equalities Committee in 2020. Power to Review Ministerial Appointments Since 2007, select committees have had the authority to review major ministerial appointments. By 2017, out of 59 pre-appointment hearings, 13 cases resulted in divided opinions or outright rejection. Examples include: • Amanda Spielman (Ofsted Chief Inspector) – initially rejected by the Education Committee after an unconvincing performance but later appointed. • Charlotte Hogg (Deputy Governor of the Bank of England) – resigned two weeks into the job after the Treasury Select Committee criticised her incomplete answers. Effectiveness and Limitations Select committees have become increasingly influential due to their independence, investigative power, and ability to challenge the government. The introduction of elected chairs has enhanced their credibility, and their reports often carry significant weight when they achieve cross-party consensus. However, their influence is limited by the fact that the government is not obligated to implement their recommendations. While they can highlight issues and hold ministers accountable, they lack the power to enforce changes. Nonetheless, they remain one of the most important mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny.

Answer 18

In September 2019, the Transport Select Committee issued a report criticising the Department for Transport for failing to take action on pavement parking, despite promises made in 2015. The committee found that, despite multiple internal reviews and consultations, little progress had been made. The report highlighted the impact of pavement parking, particularly on parents with children, and those with visual or mobility impairments. It argued that the practice discouraged vulnerable individuals from leaving their homes, increasing social isolation. To address the issue, the committee recommended a nationwide ban on pavement parking and called for a public awareness campaign to highlight its negative effects. In response, in March 2020, the Department for Transport announced plans to consult on whether local authorities should be given greater powers to tackle the problem.

Answer 19

**Effective** • Thorough Scrutiny of Government Policy – Select committees provide a structured and detailed forum for scrutinising government actions, allowing for more in-depth investigation than Commons debates. They have tackled major issues such as Brexit and institutional racism in the police. • Less Partisan Approach – Unlike the adversarial nature of the Commons, select committees aim for consensus rather than political competition, making their work more objective and credible. • Influence on Policy and Decision-Making – Committee recommendations often shape policy, and they have the power to call and question witnesses, including ministers and civil servants, forcing them to justify their decisions. • Independent and Experienced Leadership – Since 2010, chairs and members are elected by secret ballot, reducing party whips’ influence and allowing more independent-minded MPs to take charge. Many chairs have ministerial experience or policy expertise, strengthening scrutiny. • Growing Public and Media Influence – Select committees have gained significant media attention, increasing their public profile. Between 2008 and 2012, press mentions of the Home Affairs Committee rose from 295 to 2,033, demonstrating their growing public impact and accountability. • Oversight of Executive Appointments – Some select committees can scrutinise ministerial appointments, holding potential candidates to account and ensuring greater transparency in government hiring decisions. **Not Very Effective** • Avoidance of Politicised Issues – In seeking a bipartisan approach, committees sometimes steer clear of highly contentious topics, limiting their ability to challenge the government on the most divisive issues. • Party Loyalty and Government Control – Despite their independence, party loyalty still plays a role in select committee decisions. Between 2010 and 2019, 125 out of 1,325 reports saw votes along party lines, reducing their ability to challenge the government effectively. • Government Holds a Majority – The governing party always has a majority on committees, limiting their ability to block government policies or make significant changes to legislation. • Limited Power Over Policy – While committees can make recommendations, the government is not obliged to accept them, and the majority are rejected, meaning their influence is not always substantial. • Evasive Ministerial Responses – Ministers and officials often give vague or evasive answers, making scrutiny less effective. Even poor performances before committees rarely damage a minister’s career in the long term. • Lack of Legislative Power – Unlike US Senate committees, UK select committees cannot veto executive appointments and do not play a direct role in shaping legislation. Public bill committees, controlled by party whips, are responsible for legislative scrutiny instead. Conclusion Select committees provide important scrutiny of the executive, holding ministers and civil servants to account, influencing policy, and increasing government transparency. However, their effectiveness is limited by government control, party loyalty, and the lack of legislative power. While they raise public awareness of key issues and apply pressure on the government, they do not have the authority to enforce real change, meaning their influence remains significant but ultimately constrained.

Answer 20

Lower Significance Compared to Commons Committees Lords committees are considered the least significant of the three main types of parliamentary committees. This is largely due to the House of Lords’ limited power compared to the Commons. Unlike Commons select committees, Lords committees do not shadow government departments. Instead, they focus on specialist subjects, making use of the Lords’ expertise in various fields. Main Permanent Committees There are six main permanent Lords committees: • European Union Committee • Science and Technology Committee • Communications Committee • Constitution Committee • Economic Affairs Committee • International Relations Committee Ad Hoc Committees and Special Inquiries In addition to permanent committees, short-term ad hoc committees are created to investigate specific concerns. Peers propose topics for special inquiries to the Lords Liaison Committee, which then decides which ones should be established. Typically, the Lords appoints four special inquiry committees per year. For example, in May 2020, a COVID-19 Committee was created to assess the long-term economic and social impacts of the pandemic in the UK. How Lords Committees Operate Lords committees function similarly to select committees in that they conduct inquiries, take evidence from witnesses, and produce reports with recommendations. However, they differ in key ways: • Lords committees typically have 12 members, not 11 as in the Commons. • The government does not hold a majority, reflecting the party balance in the Lords. Example of Lords Committee Work In 2014, the Communications Committee produced a report on televised election debates. One key recommendation was that broadcasters should create a single online portal containing information on all debates and recordings. Notably, this recommendation was directed at media organisations rather than the government. Despite this report, controversies over televised debates continued in later elections, suggesting that Lords committees often struggle to bring about tangible change. Conclusion Lords committees provide expert-led scrutiny on a range of specialist topics, benefiting from the Lords’ diverse experience. However, their overall influence is limited compared to Commons committees. While they can raise awareness and propose reforms, their lack of direct legislative power means their recommendations often fail to bring about major policy changes.

Answer 21

1. Public bill committees a) Function: Go through bills clause by clause, debate and suggest amendments. Temporary, only meet while a bill is in the committee stage of the legislative process. b) Significance: Ensure bills are properly written and can fulfil the aims of their writers. An opportunity for other MPs, peers and interest groups to lobby and suggest changes. Major changes are unlikely as the governing party has a majority on the committee and party whips choose the members on each committee. 2. Commons select committees: a) Provide a more general oversight of the workings of government departments and ministerial actions. Less party political and partisan, for example they sit in a horseshoe form rather than as two opposing sides facing each other. Aim for greater cross-party collaboration and consensus. Many are chaired by opposition backbenchers. Able to select their own areas for investigation and can summon witnesses. b) Significance: Comprised entirely of backbench MPs. Committee chairs are elected by their fellow MPs, not selected by party whips. Produce reports to which the government must usually reply within 60 days. The government is not obliged to carry out any findings or recommendations in their reports. Their reports and hearings often generate publicity in the media. Individuals can refuse to appear. This is truer for foreign nationals such as Facebook’s (now Meta) CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, who in 2018 refused for the third time to attend a select committee investigating fake news. British citizens can be compelled to attend or be punished for contempt of parliament. 3. Public Accounts Committee (Commons only) a) function: Traditionally chaired by an experienced opposition backbencher (Meg Hillier in 2022). Scrutinises value for money in public spending and how well/efficiently the government delivers public services. b) Significance: Covers a wide range of policy areas. Recent reports have ranged from the effectiveness of the NHS Track and Trace system during the pandemic to the cost of policing protests against the HS2 rail project. 4. Lords select committees a) function: Investigate specialist subjects, taking advantage of the Lords' expertise and the greater amount of time (compared to MPs) available to them to examine issues. Currently six main committees, covering: the EU, communications, science and technology, economic affairs, the constitution and international relations. b) significance: Often contain genuine specialists in their field. The governing party does not have a majority on the committees. Government control of civil servants + Traditionally, the government had a lot of control over civil servants appearing before select committees. * The original Osmotherly Rules allowed plenty of scope for senior civil servants to be evasive and vague in their answers before committees. However, they were revised in 2014 and civil servants are now required to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of the Civil Service Code. + For example, in 2016 the Home Affairs Select Committee ejected Oliver Robbins, a senior civil servant, for failing to respond adequately to questions about the budget of the UK's border force. Civil servants must balance their answers with due regard to ministerial accountability and not deliberately undermine their political masters - the ministers.

Answer 22

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. Page 27, revision booklet. If you care

Answer 23

- Select committees are certainly active and between them produce dozens of reports each year. Among the areas investigated and scrutinised in the 2019–21 parliamentary session was the government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic and cladding on blocks of flats following the Grenfell Tower tragedy. - It is estimated that around 40% of committee recommendations are accepted by the government and a similar proportion go on to be implemented. Around one-third of recommendations for major policy changes succeed. The 2016 report by the Work and Pensions Select Committee into the collapse of the retailer BHS and the loss of much of its employees’ pension fund resulted in the company and its owners being reported to the Pensions Regulator. - Committee chairs are paid a salary equivalent to that of a junior minister, offering MPs an attractive career alternative to ministerial office. 27

Answer 24

These include: • voting on legislation, rebelling against their party on occasions • proposing legislation via PMBs • speaking in debates • asking questions, oral or written, of ministers • informal lobbying or chats with ministers, often related to issues raised by or affecting their constituents • serving on committees • joining all-party groups

Answer 25

The Role of the Opposition in Parliament The opposition plays a crucial role in scrutinising the government and providing alternative policies. It comes in several forms: • The Official Opposition – The second-largest party in the Commons (Labour or Conservative since the 1920s). • Other opposition parties – Smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats, SNP, and Plaid Cymru. • Intra-party opposition – Dissent within the governing party. • Inter-party opposition – Disagreements within a coalition government, such as during the 2010–2015 Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. Regardless of its form, the opposition must challenge government decisions and offer credible policy alternatives. For example, those opposing a no-deal Brexit proposed staying in the customs union or holding a second referendum. The Official Opposition is expected to present itself as a ‘government-in-waiting’, with a shadow cabinet mirroring government ministers. Ways the Opposition Challenges the Government Leader of the Opposition’s Special Privileges • Has the first right of reply to major government statements. • Leads questioning at PMQs, asking the first and up to five more questions. • The Leader of the Opposition and three opposition whips receive an additional salary. Opposition Days • 20 days per year are allocated for opposition parties to set the agenda (17 for the Official Opposition, 3 for the second-largest opposition party). • Used to highlight key issues and criticise government policies. • Though motions are not binding, they can influence government decisions. • Example: In 2009, an opposition motion on allowing Gurkhas (Nepalese soldiers in the British army) to settle in the UK led to a government U-turn after 27 Labour MPs rebelled. Shadow Cabinet and Policy Proposals • Shadow ministers question government ministers and propose policy alternatives. • Example: Labour’s shadow transport ministers argued for rail renationalisation in response to poor rail services. Select Committees and Scrutiny • Select committees frequently produce reports critical of government policies, strengthening opposition arguments. Intra-Party Opposition and Coalition Disputes • During the coalition government, opposition from Liberal Democrat MPs led the Conservatives to drop plans to lower inheritance tax. • During Brexit (2018-19), opposition MPs and Conservative rebels blocked Theresa May’s Brexit deals. However, they failed to agree on an alternative solution. Conclusion The opposition is essential in holding the government to account, challenging policy failures, and offering alternative solutions. While it can sometimes force policy changes, its effectiveness is limited by the government’s parliamentary majority and the non-binding nature of opposition day motions.

Answer 26

The effectiveness of the opposition in holding the government to account depends on several key factors, particularly parliamentary arithmetic and the political context. Parliamentary Arithmetic and Government Majorities • A government with a small or no majority gives the opposition greater power, as seen with Theresa May’s 2017–19 government. • With a weak majority, the government is more vulnerable to parliamentary defeats, increasing the opposition’s influence. • A strong opposition performance in elections suggests public support for their policies, increasing their legitimacy and impact. National Crises and the Role of Opposition • In times of national emergencies (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic), opposition parties often adopt a supportive stance to prioritise national unity over political point-scoring. • However, the existence of opposition parties still influences government decisions. • Example: The government’s multi-billion-pound job retention scheme during the COVID-19 outbreak may have been influenced by fears of political backlash if they failed to act decisively. Conclusion: The Balance of Power in a Democracy • The opposition’s main role is to challenge the government and propose alternatives, but an effective democracy requires an ‘equilibrium of legitimacy’. • The opposition should not attempt to veto or block every government policy, but rather provide constructive scrutiny. • Similarly, the government must allow open opportunities for the opposition to challenge its decisions. • As Lord Norton stated: ‘Good government needs an effective opposition.’ Ultimately, a strong and responsible opposition leads to better governance by holding the executive accountable while ensuring political stability. Recap on roles: + provide scrutiny and reasoned criticism of government policies and actions in debates and via parliamentary questions + suggest amendments to bills + argue for alternatives — what they would do if in power ‡ nomide a greece torin at on es cially wich pariane cary session;: 17 go to the official opposition party, three to the second-largest opposition party.

Answer 27

Strengths of the Opposition • Funding and Parliamentary Privileges – The Official Opposition receives Short money to support policy research and benefits from extra privileges in parliament, such as speaking rights and guaranteed opposition days. • Alternative Government – The opposition can present itself as a credible alternative, helping shape public debate and future election prospects. • Influencing Government Policy – In certain cases, the opposition can pressure the government into policy changes, such as with: • The Gurkhas settlement policy (2009) • Opposition to aspects of Brexit negotiations • Exploiting Internal Government Divisions – When government backbenchers rebel, the opposition can capitalise on divisions to block legislation. • Example: 2012 Conservative rebellion blocked Lords reform under David Cameron. Weaknesses of the Opposition • Government Control Over Parliamentary Business – The government chooses debate topics and has greater resources, including the Cabinet Office and special advisers for research. • Dependence on Shadow Cabinet Performance – The effectiveness of the opposition depends on key figures, whose credibility can make or break their influence. • Example: In 2017, Diane Abbott’s poor LBC interview on police funding damaged Labour’s credibility. • Difficulty in Blocking Government Legislation – The government almost always gets its policies through parliament, as opposition successes are rare. • Internal Party Opposition is Limited – Backbench rebellions only succeed if opposition parties unite behind them. Otherwise, they rarely overturn government decisions. Conclusion The opposition plays a crucial role in scrutinising the government and can force policy changes under the right circumstances. However, its power is limited by government control over parliament, resource disparities, and internal weaknesses. Most of the time, the government’s will prevails, unless political divisions or public pressure create opportunities for the opposition to exert real influence.

Answer 28

The UK operates under a fusion of powers, as the executive is formed from the legislature. However, parliament’s key function is to check and scrutinise the government. Unlike many Western democracies, power is concentrated in the Commons rather than shared between two chambers. This means the key political relationship is between the government and the Commons, rather than between separate branches of government. Parliamentary Scrutiny vs. Executive Control Under normal circumstances, the government dominates parliament, controlling the legislative agenda and benefiting from a party majority. However, exceptional circumstances—such as a hung parliament or a divided governing party—can shift power towards parliament. This was evident during Brexit debates in 2018-19 when backbench MPs and opposition parties played a significant role in shaping the political agenda. Limits to Executive Power While a government with a strong majority, like Labour in 1997 or the Conservatives in 2019, can dominate, parliamentary influence remains significant. Internal opposition from backbench MPs, select committees, and pressure from public opinion can force government U-turns. Even with executive control, parliament can challenge legislation, demand ministerial accountability, and influence key policy decisions. Conclusion In theory, the UK government dominates parliament due to its majority and control over the legislative process. However, when circumstances weaken executive control—such as political crises, leadership instability, or backbench rebellions—parliament can become a more powerful check on the government. Key points + Parliament provides the personnel for government: prime minister and ministers. + It is the forum where government is primarily called to account and scrutinised. + It passes the laws that are then interpreted and enforced by the judiciary. + Any laws passed must be compatible with international agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Answer 29

Parliament influences government decisions in the following ways: + the committee system and committee reports + election of select committee chairs and members (no longer appointed by party whips) + debates and questions + backbench rebellions in the Commons + informal lobbying of ministers by MPs and peers + amending legislation, especially in the Lords. However, there are limits to parliament's influence on government: + Governments can and do ignore select committee reports. + Select committees are poorly resourced compared to government departments. + Government majorities usually see off backbench revolts. + Party whips ensure party discipline. + The government is in control of most of the parliamentary timetable. + Many MPs aspire to promotion so are wary of upsetting the party leadership. + The government can use its Commons majority to override the Lords' amendments or rejection of a bill using, if necessary, the Parliament Act.

Answer 30

✚ Both the governing and opposition parties use a whipping system to enforce party discipline and minimise internal dissent in parliamentary votes. ✚ Most governments have large and stable enough majorities to defeat backbench rebellions (e.g. the Blair government and student tuition fees) and thus outvote the opposition. ✚ Party discipline is most fragile when a government has only a small or non-existent majority and seeks to get through legislation that is controversial with some of its own backbenchers and the main opposition parties. However, much of the time party discipline does not need to be enforced as MPs will naturally vote the way their leadership wants. ✚ The most important votes are termed three-line whips, when MPs must turn up and vote the way their leaders wish. ✚ Votes on matters of conscience, such as assisted dying or abortion, are not usually whipped, allowing MPs a free vote. ✚ Whips exert further control over party discipline by partly controlling the allocation of MPs to public bill committees, although select committee chairs and membership are now decided by a secret ballot of all MPs, thereby weakening the whips’ power. Three-line whips: Parliamentary votes when MPs must follow the voting orders of the whips. Failure to do so by a minister would lead to resignation or dismissal. Backbenchers who frequently rebel are unlikely to be offered posts in the government or on the opposition front bench. Free vote: A vote when MPs are free to vote how they wish, rather than being instructed to vote a certain way by the party leadership.

Answer 31

Evidence for Executive Dominance • Party Whipping and Discipline Government-backed bills usually pass with minimal amendments due to strong party discipline. Whips ensure MPs vote along party lines, meaning major rebellions are rare. Even when backbenchers express concerns, they often ultimately vote with the government. • Government Control of Parliamentary Business Most days of parliamentary business are scheduled and controlled by the government, giving the executive dominance over the legislative agenda. • Limited Success of Private Members’ Bills (PMBs) PMBs almost always require government support to pass. The exceptional circumstances of Brexit allowed the Benn and Cooper–Letwin bills to pass despite government opposition, but this is highly unusual. The Johnson government later overrode them with its own Brexit bill, passed in just 11 days with little scrutiny. • Select Committees’ Limited Influence Although they provide detailed scrutiny, governments ignore around 60% of their recommendations. Select committees do not have the power to force policy changes, limiting their effectiveness as a check on the executive. • Debates Follow Party Lines Public bill committees, which scrutinise legislation, are largely controlled by the government because whips determine their membership. This reduces the likelihood of major amendments being passed against government wishes. • PMQs and Question Time as Theatrics While prime ministers and ministers must face questions, these sessions often focus on political point-scoring rather than forensic scrutiny of policy. The adversarial nature of PMQs, in particular, can detract from meaningful accountability. ⸻ Evidence Against Executive Dominance • Minority or Coalition Governments Face Defeats Governments with small or no majorities can struggle to pass legislation. Theresa May’s government (2017–2019) repeatedly failed to get her Brexit deal through, demonstrating that a weak majority can severely limit executive control. • Opposition Days Provide Some Control Opposition parties have 20 opposition days per year (17 for the Official Opposition), allowing them to set the debate agenda. While these debates are non-binding, they can pressure the government into policy changes. In 2009, Labour lost an opposition day vote on allowing Gurkhas to settle in the UK, eventually leading to a government U-turn. • Private Members’ Bills Can Succeed Although rare, some PMBs addressing major social issues—such as abortion and the abolition of the death penalty—have passed without government backing, showing that parliament is not entirely powerless. • Select Committees Are More Independent Since 2010, select committee chairs have been elected by a secret ballot rather than being appointed by party whips. This has increased their independence and made their work more credible. Some high-profile inquiries—such as the 2020 investigation into the government’s COVID-19 response—have placed significant pressure on ministers. • Parliament Scrutinises Legislation Bills must go through multiple stages of debate and committee review, meaning parliament has opportunities to challenge government proposals. While major defeats are rare, the process forces ministers to defend and sometimes amend legislation. • MPs Can Hold Ministers to Account Question time, select committees, and debates give MPs opportunities to scrutinise the government. Even if PMQs is often theatrical, ministerial question sessions can provide serious scrutiny of policy decisions. ⸻ Conclusion The executive clearly holds significant power over parliament, particularly when it has a strong majority. The government controls most of the legislative agenda, party discipline ensures its bills usually pass, and scrutiny mechanisms like select committees have limited enforcement power. However, parliamentary checks become more effective in certain circumstances, such as minority governments, coalition agreements, or high-profile policy controversies like Brexit. While executive dominance is the norm, it is not absolute, and a strong parliament can still challenge the government when conditions allow.

Answer 32

The effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny of the executive is a topic of debate, with both strengths and weaknesses to consider. While parliament has modernised and improved its ability to scrutinise the government, certain limitations still persist. Strengths of Parliamentary Scrutiny: • Rebelliousness of MPs Since the 1980s, MPs have increasingly challenged government policies. This is evident in key issues like Brexit, the Iraq War, and foreign interventions. Domestic policies like student tuition fees have also seen significant backbench rebellions, reflecting greater independence within parliament. • Independent Select Committees Select committees, especially those focused on government departments, have become more influential. These committees now elect their chairs through secret ballots, increasing their independence. Their role in scrutinising government policy has grown stronger. • Diversity and Representation Parliament has become more diverse, with a broader representation of ethnicity and gender. This diversity ensures a wider range of perspectives and scrutiny of government actions. • House of Lords Reform The House of Lords has seen reforms, particularly with the reduction of hereditary peers. While still unelected, the Lords are now more focused on expertise and scrutiny rather than political affiliation. • Role in Crisis Parliament has proven effective in times of national crisis, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, where MPs held the government to account through debates and questions. • Smooth Governance The UK avoids the gridlock seen in other democratic systems, such as the US. The fusion of powers allows the government to implement its agenda efficiently, with occasional checks through elections. Weaknesses of Parliamentary Scrutiny: • Adversarial Culture Parliamentary debates are often marked by adversarial language, which can detract from meaningful scrutiny. This style, while traditional, can hinder objective analysis of government policies. • Voting Process The absence of permanent electronic voting remains a limitation, as MPs still physically file out to vote, which is inefficient and outdated. • Limited Influence of Committees Despite their growing independence, committees lack the power to influence legislation significantly. Governments often ignore committee recommendations, limiting their impact. • Inability to Resolve Crises Parliament’s failure to resolve major issues like Brexit highlights its limitations. The Brexit crisis was only resolved after a general election and a government with a large majority, showing parliament’s inability to take decisive action during crises. • Weakness of the House of Lords The House of Lords remains undemocratic, with many members being political retirees or defeated MPs. Its role in scrutinising legislation is limited, weakening the overall system of checks and balances. Conclusion: Parliamentary scrutiny in the UK has improved, particularly through independent committees and rebellious MPs. However, limitations remain, such as an adversarial culture, the lack of committee power, and parliament’s failure to resolve crises like Brexit. While the system functions well for ensuring governance with occasional checks, it struggles to provide robust, consistent scrutiny of the executive. The Westminster model has evolved, but it still reflects both the strengths and weaknesses of the UK’s constitution.

Answer 33

- Parliament comprises the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Commons is the dominant chamber, with debates being chaired by the speaker and party discipline enforced by the whips. - There have been some recent developments in parliament, most notably partial reform of the Lords. - There are several hurdles in the legislative procedure for a bill to become law. Backbench MPs have opportunities to influence or introduce legislation in debate or via PMBs. - Parliament represents the people in several ways and there are three main models of representation: Burkean/trustee, delegate and mandate. - Parliament is a forum to scrutinise the government and hold it accountable, although party politics often makes these functions less effective. - Parliamentary committees, both select and public bill, play key roles in the scrutiny of both legislation and policy. - The opposition holds the executive to account in several ways, including through debates, PMQs and suggesting alternative policies. The Official Opposition acts as a ‘government-in-waiting’. - Despite some recent changes, to a large extent parliament is only partially effective at scrutinising the executive.

Structure And Role Of Parliamnet Flashcards

(57 cards)