The House of Commons also has to hold the government to account; this can be done through Prime Ministerial and Ministerial Question Time, Debates, Voting and the Shadow Cabinet. At Prime Ministerial Question Time half an hour is given to the Commons to ask questions. At Ministerial Question Time more time is given. The first question is planned and the second is a supplementary question that can be asked without notification to the table. The civil servants write out the responses. Questions are asked at question time because it can scrutinise the government. It can also get vital information on certain policies. It can help publicise issues and show constituents that the House of Commons is actively involved. However it can be done to impress the party or embarrass the government. Sometimes it is a planted question which enables the government to express something in a favourable light. The questions are effective because supplementary questions are able to test the ability of the government. It is also a really good way to get information. However the problems include that supplementary questions can usually be anticipated and the government don’t actually have to answer the questions and it’s the civil servants that answer the questions not the government itself.
Voting is another way that the House of Commons can scrutinize the government as all government policy must be legitimised by the House of Commons, so the House of Commons can actually reject government legislation. This is effective because the number of backbenchers does out number the government so the government has to listen to the backbenchers. Government backbenchers can refuse the whip. However it can be ineffective because whips can pressurise the backbenchers, only one government bill has ever been defeated and the government always get their policy through.
Select committees are an excellent way for the House of Commons to hold the government to account because they can use research and examine a report highlighting any cause for concern. It usually consists of 11 members and the members are all professionals. The government on the whole do listen to reports and can answer some of the questions. Witnesses can also be called to obtain information. However there are many problems with this including that minister don’t have to attend the committee’s investigations. The official secrets act limits ministers to communicate information to committees. There is a lack of resources which means they cannot do there jobs effectively. The whips choose the members so it’s not the best people for the job. The government does not have to respond to questions and reports.
The shadow government is very good at scrutinizing the government. The effectiveness means that they get paid much larger salaries and ask relevant ministers relevant questions. The problem with this is that the shadow cabinet does lack relevant information and there is no civil service report.
However the House of Lords is also able to scrutinise the government through standing committees, select committees, question time and debates. Select committees in the House of Lords is non-departmental, they ensure that ministers do not act out of their power. Select committees investigate on certain policy areas and some select committees do not investigate the government at all. The House of Lords consists of a delegated powers and regulatory reform committee in which it makes sure that the government does not exceed its delegated powers. The House of Lords is very good at scrutinising the government because they have plenty of time to look through proposed policy and analyse it, making amendments where they feel necessary.
Overall I think that this role is quite effective because select committees can break party lines and act independently, Ministers and civil servants do appear in Parliament and the government is compelled to present all policies to parliament. However a lot of information is hidden away by the government, so it is difficult to scrutinise. Party loyalty can stop proper criticisms and Parliament lacks in research facilities.
Representation is another role of Parliament. Representation is about representing the people of Britain in parliament effectively, because they voted for certain people to be there on their behalf.
The House of Commons has to represent their constituency. This is not very effective at all because half the House of Commons come from a professional background whereas only 10% of the people come from professional background. This is disproportionate. However most of the House of Commons are middle aged, middle classed white men because selectors are unlikely to choose candidates who do not conform to the stereotypical voter. The job is well educated therefore it needs a well educated person to do it. It requires many skills like good communication. The House of Commons should be fairly represented because it means that policy is approved by the country as a whole. Policy is legitimate. It would improve political participation. The government’s power would be decreased and there would be a better redress of grievances for the minority groups. However sometimes its better not to represent fairly as some argue it will only create more conflicting interests. Overall it should be based on what the people want, which is the best man for the job.
Representation is affected by many factors including work overload. These days the House of Commons has such an enormous amount of work to do it is hard for them to find time to represent their constituents properly. They have to go to meetings with party officials, travel to and from the constituency, sit on committees and vote and debate. The house of Common is attracted to greed, they will obviously get paid more and have chances of promotion if they don’t go against the government.
The House of Lords is not representative of the people because the Lords do not have a constituency to represent. However people can still go to a Lord if they have a problem with government policies especially because they are less busy and are less loyal towards the party. But people do not really know who the Lords are because they are not elected. Lords used to be hereditary but now three are much more life peers, in which the title is not passed down the family. So now specialists can be introduced and people work more effectively and are based on what they have achieved.
Overall the House of Commons is quite representative because the MPs are voted in by the people however not all the people, those that don’t vote for the government are not represented in parliament. Also women and ethnic majorities are not represented well in parliament. And the whips enable no members to step out of line. The House of Lords contain peers who represent various groups and interests. But The House of Lords is not elected in the first place.
Another role of Parliament is Law making, this is one of Parliaments primary functions. To scrutinise the legislative proposals put forward by the government. This role is there to question proposals and improve government proposals; this is done through debates and questions. MPs and Lords are also able to put their own policy proposals forward, known as Private Members Bills.
Law making involves three elements in the House of Commons; Legitimation, Scrutinizing and making your own legislation. Legitimation is where the people elect officials to make laws and therefore they give consent on behalf of the people. However the government rarely has the majority. Another function in Law Making is the ability for an MP to make its own law. This can be through Private Bills, Public Bills and Private Members Bills. Private members bills are made on the behalf of a pressure group or an organisation. There can only be up to 20 put forward in a year and only about 5 get through. Private Members Bills rarely get through. Private Members Bills can succeed if there is enough time in Parliament to look at the bills. If the bill is uncontroversial and the government wants to reform a certain social issue but is too controversial for them to support directly (e.g. Homosexuality). However most Private members Bills do fail because the bills put forward are too controversial, it only takes one person in the House of Commons to object for the bill to be rejected. Many MPs waste time filibustering so they can prevent a vote from taking place. The government can also easily disapprove through the whip system.
The Lords can also make there own law by introducing a private members bill but it has to be passed through the commons and the lords to gain approval. This is difficult to do if the House of Lords object again government policy. The Lords can delay non- money bills for up to one year. They can initiate Private and Private Members Bills and they can amend House of Common Bills. However the Salisbury convention does not allow it to oppose measures included in the governments party manifesto. The Lords can also not interfere with taxation because that it the Commons Privilege. However the power of delay is hardly ever used. Lords are also non- controversial on behalf of local governments, organisations and pressure groups.
Overall the Commons can give legitimacy to legislation and the Lords are able to suggest useful amendments. But because of party loyalty the scrutiny of legislation is weak. The passage of bills is guaranteed and the House of Lords slowly is weakening in power.
Another key role done by Parliament is the role of Deliberation in which Parliament as a whole debate on the topical issues of the day concerning policy.
Debates in the House of Commons can be done through many ways including, debates on white paper, green paper, ministerial statements, committee amendments, emergency debates and may more. The effectiveness of debates is that it can uncover major issues and publicise problems. It can urge the government to reconsider policy and also helps MPs further their career. However the problem’s with debates is that they rarely change anything and is done at night time when most ministers are not present.
The Lords however spend a lot of time debating government policy and issues because they are less busy so have more time for this. They are also free from any pressure form the whips.
Redress of Grievances is another key role done by Parliament in which MPs and Lords can find out relevant information to help people with their problems regarding government policy.
The House of Commons finds it difficult to find time to take up problems from the constituents. However the House of Commons can ask the government questions on behalf of constituents and can try to amend legislation for their constituents in committee work. The Lords is unable to take part is this role because they do not represent a constituency.
A role which is carried out by only the House of Lords is the Judiciary function. The law Lords accept cases that have been referred to them by the Court of Appeal. This is a reactive court not a proactive one. The Supreme Court looks at about 1,500 cases a year by 5 Law Lords out of a total 12 each time. The Judiciaries can be argued as in being neutral and fair because it looks after the rights of the people and freedoms. It can also be said that it is independent because the decisions made are not based on policy they are based on law. However the law lords are politically appointed by the Prime Minister or the Lord Chancellor. So some appeals could be biased depending on the type of people they are for example, because most judges’ senior judges are whit, elite and elderly they will naturally be harsher towards different sections of society. Overall I think that the judicial function of the House of Lords is biased, unfair and ineffective.
Overall I think that Parliaments roles are carried out effectively because both Houses of Parliament have the rights to object to law proposals to scrutinize and to represent the people effectively. But it is obvious that the UK is not ran democratically because it is not the party with the majority of votes that rules it, parliament does not scrutinise effectively because of loyalty. It is heavily controlled by the whip system and there is not enough time for everything to be done properly. I think that if the people in the Houses of parliament acted independently and were not controlled by whips, the UK would be more democratic.