The official opposition party, the party with the second most seats, has a larger voice than other opposition parties. This is partly due to them having more MPs and partly due to the leader of the official opposition being allowed more questions during Prime Ministers Question Time. This allows more specific and in depth scrutiny that if every member could ask one question, though it does reduce the voice of many parties and pushes Parliament towards a two party system.
Despite this, there are many opportunities for smaller parties to scrutinise such as Question Time, when any MP can ask a question of a Government Minister. Although the questions are often known by the relevant Minister in advance, a supplementary question may be asked, forcing the Minister to ‘think on their feet’. This not only allows scrutiny of the work of the Minister but also scrutinises the political skill of them.
Select Committees also serve an important role in scrutinising the Goverment. These committees check the work of particular departments and make judgements on whether the work done is as effective as it could be. However, the make up of these committees reflects that of the House of Commons, meaning the governing party has a majority. This limits the effectiveness of the scrutiny within these committees as members of a party are not going to scrutinise their party as much as they would another one. The MPs who sit in these committees are also chosen by party whips, meaning that those who ‘tow the party line’ are more likely to be chosen than other MPs. This means that MPs who vote in the way of their party on most, if not all, issues will be picked, again reducing the effectiveness of these committees.
Another method of scrutinising the government is the House of Lords. This is different from opposition scrutiny in that there are both government and non-governmental Lords carrying out analysis of the Executive. This is fairer, as it allows all opinions and voices to be heard, rather than only the opposition voice which will always be critical of the Government and who’s scrutiny may only be destructive.
The House of Lords may make amendments to a bill up to three times, after which the Lower House may pass the bill anyway. This limits how well the House of Lords can scrutinise not only the Government but also the House of Commons itself. It also changes the Upper House into a delaying chamber who’s only power is to force the House of Commons and the Government to have a longer think about bills which they are passing. If a Government has a large majority within the House of Commons then the limit to the House of Lords powers helps create an elective dictatorship, meaning the Government can, in theory, pass any bill it wants as the House of Lords cannot abolish a bill and members of the governing party will always vote in their favour due to the party whip system.
The whip system uses members of a party to force MPs of their party to vote a particular way. This is done through limiting future promotions, replacement of the MP in question in the next election or, in extreme cases, expulsion from the party. When the governing party has a large majority this can often lead to an elective dictatorship. This limits how well opposition MPs can scrutinise the Government as it can effectively pass any new law it wants. The whip system is a large concern as it reduces the freedom of choice for an MP. However, some may argue that people vote primarily for the party and therefore should expect their MP to vote the way of their party.
Overall I think that although Parliament is effective in its scrutiny, there is room for improvement. Committees could be more representative of smaller parties, the House of Lords could have more power to amend bills and backbench MPs could be given more opportunities to ask questions of the Government. Despite this, the way in which Parliament scrutinises Government currently is effective, although it is not as effective as it could be.
