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

"Debates, Question Time, and Select Committees all give Parliament Teeth." Do you agree?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Debates, Question Time, and Select Committees all give Parliament Teeth." Do you agree? I don't agree with this statement because in general I don't think that Parliament is able to complete one of its main functions, to scrutinise the Government - or get its teeth into Government - very effectively. Parliament's other main function is to pass bills, yet I don't think that it can do this very well either. First of all, there are a number of reasons which prevent Parliament from being very effective and getting its teeth into Government during debates. For instances, questions are expected from MPs, so they already have answers prepared. Also, going into a debate an MP cant expect to change anyone's opinion, at best they can just hope to higher their profile and get noticed. What's more, backbench MPs, who will be aiming to raise awareness of a problem bought to their attention by constituents, hardly get the opportunity to speak, especially during great debates. Furthermore, the Whips tell MPs what to say and when to attend, so debates are very much under their control, yet sometimes debates can just turn into slanging matches between MPs. Finally, there is generally a poor attendance in debates, so often there are deals done in the corridors, as private conversations appear to be more effective. ...read more.

Middle

These have the right to call any one up for questioning, and they will be asked to give evidence and answer questions, much like in a court. This gives Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise by questioning Government's decisions, as they have the right to ask whatever they want to, they have "Parliamentary Privilege". Also Government Whips, Ministers, and the Opposition Front Benchers aren't allowed to be part of a Select Committee, which means there is less control over what is said by committee members. Furthermore, although committees are made up in proportion to the representation of Parties in the House of Commons, meaning that there is a majority of Government MPs here, they feel that it is there responsibility and duty as a member of a Select Committee to hold the Government accountable and scrutinise them to the best of their ability. What's more, people who are called up to be questioned by a select committee are expected to tell the truth and bring any required documents, so that the committees always get the evidence that they need. However, despite this power that the select committees may have, much of it is in vein, as although any MP has the right to apply to join a Select Committee and influence which one they would like to join, ...read more.

Conclusion

There are also factors that undermine Parliament that reduce its ability to scrutinise Government, for example Special Interest Groups, who get listened to more than the electorate. Also, the media has a huge influence on both Policies and the reputation of Parliament, which can often prevent Parliament from getting on with its job. What's more, Party Politics dominate Parliament, as MPs are generally more concerned with supporting their Party than with supporting Parliament. Finally, Europe has a strong influence over what goes on in Parliament, and the Executive has a great amount of power. In conclusion, despite some opportunities for Parliament to carry out arguably its main job, to scrutinise the Government, effectively, these are often ignored by the Government or undermined by outside influences, meaning that the Government has a huge amount of power that Parliament can do almost nothing about. As one Parliamentary commentator, Brick, showed through a famous cartoon, Parliament is just a big theatre performance that is staged by the Whips, but is generally of no interest to the electorate. Another Parliamentary commentator, Wright, said that it was nobody's job, not even Parliament's, to scrutinise the Government, but that there is merely a never-ending election campaign between Government and the Opposition. Therefore, in my opinion, I disagree with the statement, as I believe that Debates, Question Time, nor Select Committees give Parliament Teeth with which they can get into Government. Andrew Edwards ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Politics 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 GCSE Politics essays

  1. How effective are M.P.'s at scrutinising the Government?

    They seek to oppose and criticise the government. The opposition are also allocated a number of opposition days in which they are free to choose the topics of debates. This allows them to effectively scrutinise the government. In spite of this, the opposition cannot scrutinise the government to the best of their abilities due to a few problems.

  2. How effectively does Parliament carry out its functions?

    There is always a government majority on these committees, but often these committees are independent from Government intrusion and can reveal significant information. However, a lot of information remains under a veil for select committees and ministers have the opportunity to deny them information.

  1. How effective is Parliament? The effectiveness of Parliament can only be ascertained by evaluating ...

    The select committees also have no power to enforce any recommendations and therefore the most they can do is argue their point but they can take it no further. Fourthly, standing committees. Standing committees are larger than select committees as they have up to 40 members.

  2. To what extent does executive dominance over parliament prevent M.P.'s from carrying out their ...

    Debates will force the government to explain and defend its policies and allow M.P.'s to express dissenting views, this happened in the debate over the war in Iraq. The outcome of debates are generally predictable, as voting at the end of debates is usually whipped.

  1. How effectively do select committees perform their functions?

    In this sense they have been more successful in holding the Government accountable as opposed to the whole House. The committees try to operate away from the pressure of the party whips. Th committees try to produce unanimous reports, or at least have the support of two parties.

  2. Consider the contribution of select committees to the House of Commons' scrutiny of government ...

    to inspect the land consequence report was in accurate and not checked by Ministry that he would rent the whole land. But Ministry Committed to another course of action and his letter was not reply. He press for public inquiry.

  1. Whether or not Parliament is effective as a government watchdog

    Taking these functions at face value, one may think that the House of Commons does have a great deal of work to do but the legislative process is dominated by government, because it controls Parliamentary time again this shows weakness of parliament to act as a government watchdog, this points

  2. Legislators have three essential functions: representation, law-making and control of the executive. How does ...

    The investigative powers of the Bundestag have also been more extensive. The last two facts stand for the activeness of the lower chamber and its will to critically assist the government in power, in order for the state to benefit.

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