Secondly, the opposition. The official opposition is the party with the second largest number of seats within the House of Commons. They are in essence an alternative government to the ruling party. They seek to oppose and criticise the government and are paid extra to do so. This is effective because the existence of an alternative forces the government in power to act for the good of the people because if they did not the people would have the option to vote for the opposition. The opposition government gets 20 opposition days every year in which they get to choose what is to be debated in Parliament. This gives them a platform in which to raise issues that reveal the weakness in government and within this period they can call for a vote of no confidence in Parliament. The main criticism of the opposition government is that they exist just for the sake of adversarial politics, they are there to oppose for the sake of opposing. Also they are always responding to what ever topic the ruling government chooses to discuss in parliament apart from the 20 days a year when they get to choose what to discuss and because the are the opposition they are always a minority. This is not more evident ever than in modern day parliament in which Labour has a substantial majority.
Thirdly, select committees. Select committees are set up primarily to scrutinise and investigate a government department e.g. Treasury or a particular issue e.g. public accounts and then produces reports on their findings. Select committees are effective because they have the power to call witnesses, including ministers, civil servants, MP’s and representatives of interested groups. Unlike question time select committee questioning is free and open and ministers can be challenged on answers. At the end of committee investigations a report is issued to the House of Commons, these reports can be controversial or embarrassing to government. In this way select committees are successful in holding government accountable. However select committee members are appointed by whips and therefore party loyalty still plays a major part and the committees are dominated by ruling party members in order to be representative. 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. The main purpose of standing committees is to consider possible amendments to legislation during its passage through the House of Commons. Although it appears to be an important role in reality party whips largely control the committees. The majority of members are loyal government MP’s therefore only those amendments the government approves of are likely to be adopted. Standing committees are important in that proposed legislation has to be tidied up, clarified and modified. However standing committees lack independence and all their proposals must be approved by the whole House of Commons at the report stage of a Bill. A new committee is created for each Bill and MP’s treat them more like chores rather than honours.
And finally, debates. Debates are when Parliament discusses government policy, key issues, constituency issues etc. These are effective because they give anyone who wishes to do a chance to criticise government and to introduce new views and to expose government weakness. They are also a chance for backbenchers to criticise government. Debates are lacking because the ruling party chooses what to discuss and unless the government have a small majority they are ineffective. Debates are another example of adversarial politics, pointless arguing with a very low turnout anyway.
In conclusion Parliament is effective in a numerous number of ways but each of them is faltered.
