Parliament’s basic function is to provide both government and Opposition, but this situation of adversarial politics that exists makes for a rather ineffective system. The whips on both sides ensure that the results in elections structure the situation for the whole of the Government’s term. The Government is therefore all-powerful between elections as it has a majority, has legitimacy because of its election by the public, and is able to rule as it sees fit. The Opposition, on the other hand, is weakened by this system, as it cannot gain enough support in Parliament to oppose the Government. The Opposition, in fact, seemingly exists only to advertise their claim to be a potential Government. One might say, therefore, that Parliament has performed its function of provision of government too effectively, allowing too much power to the Government, and relatively little to the Opposition.
The legislative function of Parliament is inefficient as it again allows too much power to the Government. The executive (the Cabinet) introduce legislation and all Parliament does is approve them. Parliament always exists as a government majority so, with the help of the whips, the executive can pass any proposals it wishes. The way in which it is scrutinized is also ineffective. Standing committees are formed to oversee the structure of a law, but these do not offer any significant scrutiny. The Government holds a majority on these committees and handpicks their majority to be safe politicians who will not oppose the proposed legislature. It is not uncommon for those on standing committees to not participate unless in a crucial vote, thus undermining the effectiveness of scrutiny to the Government. The only opposition to the Government, it seems, is the House of Lords- ironically the undemocratic part of Parliament. And, as the House of Lords is re-organized by Labour, the Government will experience less and less scrutiny. This shows how ineffective the scrutiny of Parliament’s legislative function is, if the only real inquiry comes from a much-criticized undemocratic body.
Parliamentary departments create select committees to investigate policy areas, but these are often inconsistent as they can discover potentially damaging information that is often censored. However, in comparison with the pre-1979 period they are a valuable asset to our democratic system. 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. This was the case during the investigation of arms sales to Iraq- the relevant information could not be revealed because it was considered a danger to national security at the time, but more likely it would have uncovered politically damaging information about some ministers They remain relatively ineffective; though still the most effective scrutineers of governmental activity.
To conclude, it would have to be said that Parliament is monumentally flawed, and that almost, if not, all its functions are ineffective in some way. The adversarial manner in which it divides itself between government and Opposition makes co-operation difficult and hands the Government “elected dictatorship” almost on a plate. As a legislative body, Parliament does not exist. As the Government already holds a majority in Parliament, there is nothing to stop the executive’s proposed laws from being passed. Also, the implementation and scrutiny of these laws is impeded by the fact that a government majority exists in both select and standing committees, thus reducing their effectiveness significantly. Changes in the House of Lords will reduce the scrutiny and legislative process even further, with “Tony’s cronies” coming into the House of Lords to create an effectively dictatorial situation in British politics, with any opposition to the Labour party itself very unlikely for some time.