Whether or not Parliament is effective as a government watchdog

There are several ways in theory, in which Parliament can criticise the government effectively. One of the ways is using standing committees, which are temporary committees. They are set up to examine a certain part of a Bill, and then are dispended. All the members are temporary, and are new for each bill. Their purpose is to scrutinise Bills, clause by clause and propose amendments. In reality the committees are made up from MPs, and the numbers in the standing committee are representative of the number of seats in the House of Commons each party has, meaning a majority government can always dominate. There may be a lot of debate within the standing committees, but they operate along adversial party lines or collective responsibility, which generally means that the MP will vote for their own party. One of the main criticisms of Standing committees is the use of time motions, such as the guillotine to restrict debate.  Because MPs recognise time motions, they tend to filibuster, and slow down the passage of the legislative process in Parliament – this shows how Parliament can be ineffective as a watchdog. Furthermore, standing committees take excessive time to carry out their work, and membership is seen as a chore because of the time involved. One reason why the standing committees take excessive time over policies is because they cannot take evidence from outside bodies or individuals. In order for the House of Commons and Parliament to become more effective, the government has to reform the legislative process. This involves changing several factors. There have been proposals for badly flawed pieces of legislation, such as poll tax and the Dangerous Dogs Act proving Parliament is merely a uneffective talking shop. The government used its high majority to drive these through without significant debates. This is an example were the Commons was not used as it should been, and badly thought through, was passed, which in the case of the Poll Tax had devastating effects for the Conservative party in the longer term. Another form would be to provide for pre-legislative scrutiny of draft-bills. This would mean that in a particular area of experts could be consulted, and any potential difficulties ironed out before the bill would be passed to the Commons. This would mean that the bill would have amendments made to it, and there would be more time for debating.

Private Member’s Bills (PMB’s) are introduced and promoted by backbench MP’s. They take up approximately 10% of Parliamentary time, and are held on twelve Fridays in each session. The majority of PMB’s fail, due to the lack of time available. In reality, the MP needs the government support to pass a Bill. PMS’s are prone to filibustering, although there have examples of success in the 1960’s reforms to law on abortion and homosexuality. In 1994, a PMB influenced the government to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to 18.

Debates in theory are one of the main ways of holding the government to account, and there are several different types of them. Debates force government to explain its policies and justify its actions. There are in reality more limitations to debates than there are strengths. For example, most debates do not have an effect on government policy, which shows how poor parliament is as a watchdog, as the majority of MPs tend to vote for their own party and usually for selfish reasons. Attendance at debates has dropped over recent years, and backbenchers tend to address small audiences with the voting patterns tending to be predictable. Furthermore debates have a tendency to develop into party political point scoring.

Question time is another important tool for scrutinising government, and is a valuable source of information for Mps and the electorate. It forces government ministers to explain their policies and respond to the issues of the day. The limitations for Question Time include the amount of time that is available, as there is often not much time to answer questions. Ministers can give inadequate and vague answers which decreases Parliaments ability to be a watchdog, in this case of “Arms to Iraq”, the Scott enquiry found that ministers were lying. The government refuses to answers questions on taboo topics, such as security matters. Another limitation of Question Time is that planted or friendly questions are asked. This reduces parliamentary time yet further, and there are often endless debates on these issues. Other aspects, which do not have any effective use, are things such as disproportionate cost excuse, where ministers refuse to answer questions because the information is not readily at hand. As in the case with other debates, question time often develops into party political point scoring, and no effective use of the time available is made.

There is also Prime Ministers Question time, and this is the main set piece of the parliamentary week. This supposedly gives MP’s a chance to criticise and scrutinise the Prime Ministers policies. Tony Blair has revised the timetable for Prime ministers Question Time, and it is now held twice weekly. Due to this, it is now possible to examine issues in greater depth, and MPs get a greater chance to speak. As a whole, it is argued that there are fewer opportunities to hold the government to account.

There has been increased use of select committees under the new Labour government. It is a fact that the government has taken notice of the select committees reports on certain issues. An example would be the Thatcher government in 1986. They acknowledged one hundred and fifty recommendations coming from select committees. They came from reports such as the child support agency, the mis-selling of pensions and in the trade and industry sector the government acknowledged recommendations over pit closures. In general, the government will dismiss select committees findings in the short run, but implement them at a later date. The select committees are the only way where the members try and dilute the hold exerted by party politics, and attempt to produce unanimous reports. This is a real strength for the Commons, as the unity in the report signifies increased authority in it. They often produce reports that criticise the government, which may be regarded as a good thing, because it makes up for all the adversarial politics, and the party points scoring.

The golden age of Parliament was between 1832 and 1868, this was the period when Parliamentary strength over the executive was at its maximum. It was the time when the government lacked stable Parliamentary majorities, as the party system had not been developed. Nowadays the current model is a contradiction to the “golden age”, and it is argued that it is the government and not parliament that has the policy-making role. Because parties dominate Parliament, and party discipline is respected, the bulk of legislation goes through unchanged, even though the opposition can make its case and criticise the government.

However on the other hand, It is argued by Lord Norton that since the 1970’s there has been a revival of Parliament, and they are now holding the executive to account. He said that MP’s are not always “lobby Fodder”, and voting in a highly predictable way. There have been an increase in maverick MP’s these are MP’s which do not always vote with the government. From 1992 –97, the Major government had a small majority of twenty-one, and every rebellion was important. The large rebellions tended to be over Europe, VAT on domestic fuel, railway privatisation and the BSE crisis. The new labour Government has a 179 majority in the Commons, and has been defeated over issues such as the introduction of tuition fees, single parent benefits and the privatisation of Britain’s Air traffic control system.

It is argued by many people that Parliament has become more professional, as it now has better resources, but is still not the best it could be. MPs have been given substantial salary increases offices and support facilities than they have ever had in the past. There is greater self-regulation as well as a reduction in sleaze, for example the cash for questions issues. MP’s also now have greater activity in their constituencies. Lord Norton said that “Parliament may be a danger of becoming a victim of its own success – from becoming overlooked to overloaded.”

Another point, which goes towards the weakness of parliament, is the strength nowadays of the Prime minister, he has control over patronage and is the chief member in the government and when he has a large majority he basically has full control.

It can be concluded that Parliament and essentially the House of Commons is a poor watchdog of the government, however it cannot be blamed on them – under the new Labour Government, there has been a decline in the use of Parliament. There are widespread allegations that Labour has neglected Parliament. The current large commons majority means that the government can brush aside backbench revolts, and can afford to pass controversial issues. It is also known that the Labour Government ministers have by-passed Parliament in making announcements. Some ministers now announce new issues to the media first, as this creates favourable press coverage. An example would be Tony Blair announcing extra spending on the NHS on the Frost programme instead of Parliament. This has been recognised by Betty Boothroid, and she complained to Margaret Beckett, the leader of the House, about the problem of announcements made to the media first. Beckett acknowledged this and said that the “government was bypassing Parliament”. The Conservatives feel the House of Commons has become marginalized under Blair. With the majority of the current Labour government added to the Royal prerogative the government appear to be currently in too strong a position. Parliament would only really come strong again if the government in power had a small majority, or there was a hung Parliament.