Another form of scrutiny is Opposition Day debates which are days scheduled by the opposition for the purpose of debate on a chosen subject. These take place twenty days in each parliamentary session of which seventeen days are at the discretion of the leader of the opposition and the other three at the discretion of the second largest political party. The purpose of this is to allow the opposition to challenge governmental decision making & policy, and to some extent this has a meaningful effect on governmental decision making since the government is required to justify their decisions and thus is questionable for their conduct in coming to these decisions. However their meaningfulness is questionable when taking into account the rivalry between the opposition and the governmental body in charge, since this might make their scrutiny unbiased and rather be nothing more than immature squabbling. It seems these are merely ego battles by opposition parties. This view is also expressed by Rodney Brazier stating “the government will not normally be at risk of defeat on the invariably critical Opposition day motions, but the existence of such days helps parliamentary reputations to be enhanced or diminished”.
Additionally employed for scrutiny are debates of government motion. These as the term suggest are opportunities for debate and examination of government policy and actions in a greater depth. The whole purpose of such debates is to place government policy under the scrutiny of the public so that they are able to comment and criticise on such policy, and to some extent this aspect makes debates an effective form of scrutiny of governmental decision making as this allows the public to be aware of policy and allows MPs to challenge policies and actions which appear to be ineffective. This view is similarly expressed by Kenneth Newton & Jan W. Van Deth who express that “the advantage of debate is that it subjects to the glare of public scrutiny and criticism, and can help to improve the quality of legislation”. However the meaningful effect on government decision making is questionable when taking in account the fact that critics often argue that such debates rarely lead to action being taking and rather tend to result in pointless battles for the purpose of proving a point to the public.
Private Members Motions come in the form of either an order or resolutions to establish a wide variety of issues; their classification is based on their intent. Their distinction is primarily that whilst resolutions are usually merely expression of opinions or purposes by members, whilst orders are directions for committees which the government have adopted. Thus the contrast is that resolutions do not bind the government to adopt a specific policy or course of action.
Select Committees are an integral aspect of scrutiny. They take many forms some relate to the running of the commons, others relate to the procedures employed by the house, whilst a third class; departmentally related have an investigative and reporting duty. Select committees determine what subject to investigate and this is what makes it such an effective form of scrutiny since as stated by Barnett “every aspect of government administration is potentially susceptible to inquiry”. The
Liaison Committee concluded the “select committee system has been a success” and that it has “provided independent scrutiny of the government” Nonetheless select committees do not have powers over aspects most relevant to the government such as legislation, taxation & expenditure. This view is purported by Phillip Gidding stating “Select committees perform an important function of scrutiny but they do not have real power over the things that matter to governments—the passage of Legislation, the voting of taxation and expenditure, the continuation of ministers in office”.
Finally the executive is subject to vigorous mechanisms of scrutiny the meaningful effect of this on decision making is on the whole limited, since the only widely accepted successful forms of scrutiny are Parliamentary Questions and the Select committee systems both which are systematically flawed. Parliamentary questions whilst on the hand allowing supplementary questions can be exempted by reasons of public policy/security. Select Committees whilst being able to choose whatever subject to investigate have no real meaningful power on those aspects which are of importance to the government.
However usually the Prime Minister is briefed regarding questions which may be asked and so usually has prepared answers.
Stapenhurst, R., Pelizzo, R; Olson, D and Von Trapp, L. (2008) Legislative Oversight and Government Accountability. Washington:World Bank Publications. Pg 186.
Additionally scrutiny is limited by other factors such as: no actual vote is gathered and so adjournment debates merely allow an opportunity to raise an issue, secondly topics tend to be vague and mre focused on constituency, thirdly such debates tend to generate into an opportunity for political point scoring by MP with constituents and finally wider debate or action is infrequent as a result of such debates.
Barnett, H. (2008) Constitutional and Administrative Law. 7th edn. London: Routledge-Cavendish. Pg 391
Another success occurred in 1998 with regards to the Education Reform Bill 1988, where two conservatives of senior posts scheduled an EDM for the eradication of the Inner London Education Authority and this was contrary to the policy of that time for the secretary of state for education, and this EDM garnered support from 120 other conservative backbenchers resulting in amendment to the bill by the secretary of state. See: Barnett, H. (2008) Constitutional and Administrative Law. 7th edn. London: Routledge-Cavendish. Pg 391
Barnett, H. (2008) Constitutional and Administrative Law. 7th edn. London: Routledge-Cavendish.Pg 391
A survey by the Hansard Society came to the conclusion that due to the unsurprising defeat of opposition motions during debates coupled with the poor quality of debate in general and lack of public interest means that such debates may not be appropriate. See: Stapenhurst, R., Pelizzo, R; Olson, D and Von Trapp, L. (2008) Legislative Oversight and Government Accountability. Washington:World Bank Publications. Pg 185.
On the other hand many critics feel the efficiency of opposition debates is difficult to assess, and that reliance should not completely be placed on the Hansard Society’s View which is to some extent stringent. Rick Stapenhurst Riccardo Pelizzo, David Olson and Lisa Von Trapp who have stated “the effectiveness of opposition days is hard to measure, and the conclusions of the Hansard Soceity Commission may be a little harsh”. See: Stapenhurst, R., Pelizzo, R; Olson, D and Von Trapp, L. (2008) Legislative Oversight and Government Accountability. Washington:World Bank Publications. Pg 185.
Brazier, R. 1999) Constitutional Practice: The Foundations of British Government. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. .Pg 225.
Additionally it is accepted by the public that although opposition debates may have limited success, they can sometimes be effective scrutiny in situations where they cause media coverage and in turn pressurize the government these views are professed by Rick Stapenhurst and Riccardo Pelizzo, David Olson and Lisa Von Trapp stating “thought opposition days are routinely defeated, they can have indirect effects such as capturing or perpetuating media coverage and putting pressure on the government” . They use the example of an opposition day in 2001 criticising spin tactics within the department of transport, the local government and the regions. The debate revolved around the calls for the resignation of the special advisor Jo Moore following his sending of an email expressing that his colleagues should “bury” bad news due to the recent September 11 attacks. This resulted in a great deal of media pressure and further allegations of improper behaviour to be placed on Jo Moore culminating in his resignation in February 2002, whilst the opposition debate was not solely responsible for this, it did have some part in its occurrence. See: Stapenhurst, R., Pelizzo, R; Olson, D and Von Trapp, L. (2008) Legislative Oversight and Government Accountability. Washington:World Bank Publications. Pg 185.
Debates also take place in the House of Lords which to some extent are more meaningful mechanism of scrutiny of governmental decision making because unlike other debates the members are not as party political, the peers have much more expertise and finally a greater amount of time is spent on such debates. .Similiarly emergency debates can take place for matters which are considered to be of a vital national significance, and thus few applications for emergency debates are accepted. For example on the 19th of March 2002 a emergency debate took place on the war in Afghanistan. The process to apply for emergency debates involves that a member of parliament applies to the speaker their wish to raise a essential matter for debate, and if this is then accepted then this debate takes place following question time and private notice questions. The next process is that the debate is introduced but then is a three hour period is set for debate of the matter for the next day. To some extent since debate is held on matters of emergency, the effectiveness of such debates is high because the government will have to satisfy any policy they wish to take on such emergency matters, and thus they will not be able to solely take action without being challenged by parliament. However since these debates are granted rarily their scrutiny has a restricted effect on governmental decision making, as not all governmental policy can be subject to an emergency debate. However their strength in scrutiny lies in the fact that they can attract a great deal of publicity and media attention which places a lot of pressure on the government to justify their decision making.
Van Deth, J.W and Newton, K. (2005) Foundations of Comparative Politics (Cambridge Textbooks in Comparative Politics). London: Cambridge University Press. Pg 109.
. However the strength of their scrutiny is significantly weakened when taking into account the fact that the whole process is controlled within by the government, who not only decide when debates are scheduled but also decide which subject matter will be discussed within these debates. This view is supported by Rick Stapenhurst and Riccardo Pelizzo , David Olson and Lisa Von Trapp who state “the salience of debates in the house of commons as a means of oversight are constrained from the outset , as the government controls not only the timetable but much of the ground on which it will debate” See Stapenhurst, R., Pelizzo, R; Olson, D and Von Trapp, L. (2008) Legislative Oversight and Government Accountability. Washington:World Bank Publications. Pg 184.
Nonetheless there is evidence to suggest that the government does not dictate completely. As for example Rogers and Walter (2004) employed the example of the government’s debate and vote on war with Iraq in 2003, where despite their authority, the government chose to seek authorization for military action. See: Stapenhurst, R., Pelizzo, R; Olson, D and Von Trapp, L. (2008) Legislative Oversight and Government Accountability. Washington:World Bank Publications. Pg 184
Select Committees have three types: Ad hoc, Sessional and Departmentally related. An Ad Hoc Select committee is set up to examine specific issues and once they have completed a report on these issues they tend to disperse. Sessional select committees are in place for the course of parliamentary session for example procedure committee , standards and Privileges Committee. Departmentally related committees are made up of one select committee per central government department and thus they are frequently changed in response to newly created, abolished and restructured government departments.There are several select committees to assess a range of areas these include those dealing with there are select committees dealing with, Education and Employment, Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs, Social Security, and so on. Their membership is generally proportioned in line with the size of each of the parties in the House of Commons as a whole and thus the government of the day tends to always have a majority on each select committee, however around a half of them are chaired using mutual agreement usually by senior opposition members
The process of inquiry usually follows a format where before beginning official work on that inquiry , a selct commiteer publishes a press release which sets out the terms of reference of the enquiry and also which call for written submissions from interested parties. Once the committee has gathered and received these statements and have read and examined them, they will create a list of people to question orally so that they can be asked about the points they have raised within their submissions. The final stage undertaken by select committees once an inquiry is complete is to issue a report to which the government is obliged to respond to. However the proposals are not binding.
Barnett, H. (2008) Constitutional and Administrative Law. 7th edn. London: Routledge-Cavendish
Stapenhurst, R., Pelizzo, R; Olson, D and Von Trapp, L. (2008) Legislative Oversight and Government Accountability. Washington:World Bank Publications Pgs 188-189
Stapenhurst, R., Pelizzo, R; Olson, D and Von Trapp, L. (2008) Legislative Oversight and Government Accountability. Washington:World Bank Publications Pg 189
Giddings, P. (1994) ‘Select committees and Parliamentary scrutiny’. 47 Parliamentary Affairs 669
