• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How effective is Parliament as a check on the executive?

Extracts from this document...


How effective is Parliament as a check on the executive? One of the main functions of Parliament is to hold the Government to account. This is done by forcing the Government to justify their policies and bills in the form of structured debate within the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Parliament also forces the Government to defend their actions, such as the decision to cut �81bn from public spending in the recent spending review. This Government decision will no doubt be debated in Parliament throughout the next few years. One of the reasons why Parliament is so weak in relation to Government is party domination. In virtually every general election, one party will win over 50% of the seats and therefore have a majority. This means the governing party will get its way all the time. In recent times two parties have dominated - Labour and the Conservatives. The other parties, including the Liberal Democrats, are all weak by comparison. This is the most important factor for Parliament being weak in relation to Government. The British electoral system of first past the post benefits Labour and the Conservatives who win lots of seats, for the Liberal Democrats and the small parties FPTP does not benefit them at all, this is why the Lib Dems have campaigned for alternative vote (AV) which was a key part of the 2010 coalition agreement. The main problem the Lib Dems have is that they keep finishing second in constituencies. So despite a large share of the vote, they do not win many seats. ...read more.


The issues debated in Parliament are often very complicated and a minister will have it all explained to them, your average MP won't. Government ministers deliberately withhold information as a lot of Government work is highly secretive. As ministers are reluctant to release information which could be politically embarrassing, Parliament has a lack of access to information which should be available for them to get hold of. Obviously there is some limit here - top secret information e.g. threats to national security should remain private, but the Government withholding information purely on the basis that it is damaging to them is wrong. How is Parliament supposed to effectively hold the executive to account if it doesn't know what it is doing? The Government can delay the release of information until nobody is paying attention, and often does. An alternative is to ''sex up'' a document to boost support, e.g. Iraq Dossier. It contained allegations such as the hording of weapons of mass destruction which all proved to be untrue. Parliament is also weakened because MP's have far too many commitments. MP's are very busy people with too many demands on their time. They not only have constituency work to deal with, which has become more important in recent times, but the full Parliamentary week is ever increasing. PMQ's, Ministerial question time, general debates, opposition debates, select committees, there is too much to do and they have no support. Ministers have lots of help, MP's have nothing remotely similar. Parliament is weak in relation to the executive because the electoral system invariably provides the Government with a majority, a hung Parliament (as in 2010) ...read more.


A long standing problem was that the Prime Minister never had to face a select committee, because a select committee is for a department. So the most powerful MP got away because there was no Prime Ministerial department. This was changed under Blair and the Commons Liaison Committee was introduced to hold the Prime Minister to account. The CLC consists of the chairperson of each select committee who cross examine any aspect of policy in depth. Finally, an Early Day Motion can be put forward by a group of MP's. This calls for a debate on a particular subject, so MP's can let the Government know how they feel without actually voting against them. Others are invited to add their support. This has been used by backbenchers to criticise various aspects of Government policy from ID Cards to Iraq. Parliament is weak in relation to the executive because the electoral system invariably provides the Government with a majority. The governing party will usually support the Government on anything even if it goes against their own beliefs. In addition, MP's lack the time, expertise, information and resources needed in order to make life difficult for the Government. However, the Government cannot run without the support of Parliament. Parliament also limits the Governments legislation so it does not always get its own way - Labour wanted ID Cards, but Parliament did not, so they were never implemented. Parliament can also openly scrutinise the executive by questioning ministers, and openly debating policy. Despite some flaws, I believe that Parliament is still an effective body in relation to the executive. Despite the best efforts of the Government to make MP's jobs harder, Parliament can effectively hold the executive to account. ?? ?? ?? ?? 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United Kingdom section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United Kingdom essays

  1. How effective is parliament at holding the executive to account?

    Also they are not always successful. An example of this is the Foreign Affairs Committee over Iraq. There was still a huge Labour majority and the UK went to war anyway. The fourth way in which the executive is held to account is by standing committees.

  2. How effective is Parliament in Calling the Executive to Account?

    Minsters are not obligated to answer questions posed by the committees and often refuse, for example Keith Vaz. Lack of co-operation by the departments limits parliament's effectiveness. The Howard principle may also occur, where the minsters refuse to resign after the select committee deem them to be unfit for their role.

  1. How effective is the House of Commons as a check on the executive?

    As I have hinted, in New Labour's first term 1997 to 2001 the Labour party was accused of having too much cohesion. There were few backbench rebellions and most Labour MPs were toeing the party line. Some commentators went as far as to accuse Labour MPs of being spineless and gutless, a bunch of wimps.

  2. The Labour Party.

    * Being supportive of NATO and the 'special relationship' with the USA, while being sceptical about European integration. Liberalism * Privatising many nationalised industries. * Refusing to intervene to support ailing industries, leaving many inefficient manufacturing industries to collapse. * Abandoning the goal of full employment in favour of control of inflation.

  1. adult education

    The first period between 1949 to1966 saw the take-off and development of New China's adult education known as 'developing period'. In this developing period the literacy rate dropped from 80 to 43 per cent. The second period is called the 'stagnating period' which affected by the ten year internal disturbances known as the 'Cultural Revolution' from 1966 to 1976.

  2. The Vampires Attack As he walked up the rickety ...

    He nodded and told her where it was. As she got off the phone she looked surprised. "He seemed delighted. He says that we've been a great help and that the body will be removed very soon." * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  1. Why is Parliament so weak in relation to the executive?

    The huge numbers of seats in Parliament that were given to Labour meant that fair representation of political opinion was undermined hugely. Additionally, the majorities necessary for new laws would be a given if the party were behind their leader which in the case of Tony Blair was almost always the case.

  2. How Red Is Ed Miliband?

    ?I would keep the 50p rate permanently. It?s not just about reducing the deficit, it?s about fairness in our society and that?s why I?d keep the 50p tax rate, not just for a parliament.? On the higher tax rate, Ed Miliband is clearly to the left of his main rival,

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work