How effective is Parliament in controlling the Executive?
![Authors Avatar]()
by
didier11 (student)
How effective is parliament in controlling the executive? In no sense in the UK does parliament control the executive, since we normally have single party government in the House of Commons, which with the use of the party whipping system can normally ensure the passage of government legislation, simply because the government has a majority of seats. The House of Lords by convention normally does not reject government bills that were announced in their election manifesto; in any event its delaying powers are restricted to one year, after which time bills automatically become law, regardless of Lords objections. Parliament does, however, have important scrutiny functions. In other words, the executive has to explain and justify their policies and actions to parliament. Ministers answer questions by backbenchers during the daily Question time, while the prime minister answers questions every Wednesday. It is often suggested that the media provide a more effective form of scrutiny than does parliament. MPs take up issues raised by their
constituents, such as immigration rules. In this way MPs try to protect them from undesirable policy outcomes, Commons Select committees have the key role of strengthening the scrutiny role of parliament, though they have no input whatever into legislation.; there are 16 in all in the Commons. Most shadow government departments, though a small number are concerned with broader government issues. Their main work involves undertaking inquiries on specific issues and publishing reports for the House to consider, to which the government normally issues a reply, though the committees have no power to insist that their reports are debated or ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
constituents, such as immigration rules. In this way MPs try to protect them from undesirable policy outcomes, Commons Select committees have the key role of strengthening the scrutiny role of parliament, though they have no input whatever into legislation.; there are 16 in all in the Commons. Most shadow government departments, though a small number are concerned with broader government issues. Their main work involves undertaking inquiries on specific issues and publishing reports for the House to consider, to which the government normally issues a reply, though the committees have no power to insist that their reports are debated or acted upon. They have the power to ‘send for persons, papers and records’ and can thus examine documents and question ministers and civil servants. In practice, their ability to control the executive is limited, since they lack the time, resources and personnel to apply effective pressure. MPs are appointed to committees by the Committee of Selection. Each committee mirrors the party balance in the House, and so the majority of members are currently conservative MPs. Nevertheless the committees have often produced damning reports in recent years, particularly in the areas of health, social security, transport and industrial policy. The UK parliament is not a policy-making assembly, because the House of Commons is dominated by the governing party, which almost always has a majority of seats except for in coalitions, like there is now. The key function of making law has effectively been transferred to the executive branch, and therefore sees the Commons contribution to the process as one of ‘scrutiny and influence’. The powers of the Lords are limited by law and by convention. They can delay legislation only for a year (under the 1949 Parliament Act). The Lords has a key role in the revision of Commons legislation, devoting about 700 hours each year to the task, and offering some 8500 amendments. The Lords have been repeatedly obstructive in two areas – criminal justice and foxhunting – even to the point of rejecting bills at Third Reading, which by convention is normally simply a tidying up exercise. The government was defeated on five separate occasions on the Criminal Justice Bill, and finally abandoned proposals to limit rights to a jury trial in December 2003. Bills to ban foxhunting in England and Wales were passed in the House of Commons in every year from 1997, and were rejected on every occasion in the Lords. In October 2004 the Lords voted to restore hunting under licence; in November, the Commons again rejected a proposed compromise to delay action until 2007 and voted for an immediate ban.The power of the executive has been growing for well over a century. Parties became more coherent, and are now viewed as the principal agent of representation; party unity and discipline facilitate government domination. The party whips play a critical part in enforcing discipline. There has been a government with a Commons majority in 59 of the 62 years since the War, and so the opposition parties have competed on a level playing field in parliament; the ‘sovereignty of parliament’ is usually in effect ‘sovereignty of government’. At the same time there has been a massive growth in the role of government, and an accompanying increase in the size of the bureaucracies which advise governments and which administer policy. Yet over the last 25 years parliament has become more professional, with the disappearance of the ‘part-time’ MP, the introduction and strengthening of specialist committees, and the increase in support staff. The Commons is more critical of governments, backbenchers rebel more often and the Lords is far more willing to reject Commons legislation. MPs nowadays at the very least expect the Government to listen to them. Backbenchers (through public statements and negotiation behind the scenes) can sometimes force governments to make significant amendments to legislation, though it remains the case that they are usually unable to thwart any major government legislation. Similarly, the Lords can be rebellious, amending or delaying bills, but almost without exception ultimately defers to the Commons, normally after securing concessions.
by
didier11 (student)
