Assess the effectiveness of Parliaments Scrutiny of Government.

Question time was traditionally held up as the parliamentary institution, which enshrined ministerial accountability of the House of Commons. Today less is expected of the procedure which has been absorbed by the party political battle. Notice must be given ( at least two days) of questions to ministers to allow time for the preparation of answers. Before recently question time was held twice a week, but has know been limited to once a week. This gives the Prime Minister and Ministers time to prepare what they are going to say and it can allow them even to manipulate and predict the questions. The government can introduce certain difficult issues straight after one-weeks questioning and by next week there would be new and maybe easier topic for the PM to answer, it can basically help him get out of hard situations. There is also not adequate time for many questions and ministers can avoid straight questions by rambling and wasting time. All these points make parliament’s scrutiny of government far less effective. There are so positive and effective parts of question time that scrutinise the government, such as direct confrontation between government and the opposition and it can reveal gaps in government knowledge. There was a report, compiled by a commission headed by former Conservative Cabinet minister Lord Newton of Braintree. It argues that scrutiny of government is “neither systematic nor rigorous,” and the performance of peers and MPs falls short of what is excepted.

The most important form on scrutiny of the work of the executive had always come from the investigative or select committees of the House of Commons. These were first established in the nineteenth century and have become a regular feature of parliamentary life since that time.  The Departmental committees were the first attempted to regularise the scrutiny system committees that could examine ‘ the expenditure, administration and policy’ of the main government departments. Around 17 department committees exist today. Committees have substantial powers given to them by Parliament and can call for persons, papers and records. They publish unanimous reports of their deliberations and, unlike standing committees, operate in a non-partisan parliamentary way. The difficulty is the fact that the government is not obliged to act on a committee’s recommendations, although it does make a response. Such behaviour limits any policy influence committees may have over the executive. Select committees have improved the scrutiny function of the House of Commons over the executive. The results have been such things as now the house of commons is better informed about government work through MPs specialised critical activity in select committees. Also Committees have had a direct effect on the behaviour of government in the knowledge that their affairs are publicly scrutinised. Although difficult to count exactly, the government later adopts the reports of select committees and proposals may find their way into improvements in policy. But executives in parliamentary systems are generally reluctant to see increased powers given to scrutiny committees for fear of losing policy initiatives to what becomes government by committee.