The second way in which the executive is held to account is by debates that regularly take place in the House of Commons and House of Lords. All pieces of legislation must be debated at least twice. Debates justify the government and let all parties put their views across about a certain issue. It is effective because it lets other parties have a view and makes the UK more democratic. An example of this is in 2003 where many debates were held about whether the UK should go to war with Iraq or not, in this instance, they did go to war. However, it is ineffective because the result of the debate may have little effect on the government as the result is inevitable. An example of a debate is about the London Olympic Bill.
The third way in which the executive is held to account is by select committees, which were introduced in 1979. They investigate the work of government departments and decide if they have acted effectively and efficiently. These are groups of 9 – 11 MPs, whom are usually specialised and experienced as they have been in this field for a long time. They question and cross examine ministers, their civil servants and any witnesses. Some examples of select committees are “Culture, Media and Sports”, “Home Affairs” and “Defence.” It is effective at holding the executive to account because, unlike Question Time, there is no formal procedure and questions may go on for some time. Peter Hennessy called them the: “single most important weapon on increased parliamentary influence of the 20th Century.” On the other hand, they are ineffective because they do have some pressure of time, which can not give them a chance to look at all facts and therefore to reach a fair judgement. 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. For each separate Bill a new committee is formed. There are usually between 15 and 50 members. They examine each part of legislation before it passes through the House. They are effective because Bills suggest that Bills be amended and the Bills can sometimes be amended if the committee votes in a majority that it should be changed. Therefore they do have some legislative control. An example of an amendment is clarifying the wording of the Bill or sometimes big changes which will transform the application of the law. Standing Committees are also ineffective because they only last a short time. Also MPs have limited time and resources. As well as this the party whips easily influence the committee and therefore not reflecting the true view of the committee.
The final way in which the executive is held to account is by the House of Lords. The House of Lords scrutinises proposed legislation. This is usually carried out by standing committees of both Houses. It is effective as amendments can be proposed, and the piece of legislation closely inspected. However, it could be seen as ineffective because legislation can not be blocked, only important changes can be stated and maybe accepted.
There are also some variable factors that must be taken into account. One of these is the majority size that the Bill is passed by. An example of this in 2001 where Labour got a 97 majority. The strength of the opposition also has an effect because if the opposition is stronger the government will be scrutinised better, for example in question time, and people will be able to make a better decision about some legislation. Whereas if the opposition is weak, the legislation will be passed more easily. It also depends on who is chairing the select committee. For example, Dunwoody.
In conclusion, the effectiveness of parliament is increasing rapidly now because Labour have been in power since 1997 and parliament is more likely to rebel and hold the executive to account better. I think that parliament holds the executive to account partially because they provide useful checks and balances that ensure that the government cannot just win with a simple majority and pass any legislation as this would be undemocratic. However, government can still have some hold over the parliaments decisions, yet not completely.
