One must also state the more detailed inspections provided by parliament to check on the executive power. That is that firstly one may argue that the government also known as the executive is accountable to parliament and through parliament to the people and as a result it is in the parliament that the government must elaborate and defend its actions. This is done through a few procedures that the executive must go through in order to be able to legislate a law. Firstly there is Parliamentary questions, secondly there is the general, adjournment , private members motion and emergency debates, thirdly comes the early day motions, fourth is the select committees and finally letters to ministers are sent out.
However over all parliamentary questions are seen to be the most celebrated ways of calling the Prime Minister and ministers to account for their conduct of government.
The way that the procedures that have been mentioned earlier function is as follows. Question time functions with the view that the backbenchers can submit oral and written questions to ministers, allowing the written questions and replies to be recorded in Hansard. Ministers are then able to reply to oral questions daily and the Prime Minister replies once a week.
The debates is slightly different and cut up into a number of sub functions, the general debate is based on the Queens Speech and the action tabled by government and the opposition, here the backbenchers are able to raise issues during this debate. An adjournment debate gives the opportunity to raise general or district issues, here again backbenchers may raise issues also. A private motion debate has eleven days pre sessions allocated also here backbenchers may raise issues. And finally emergency debates may be required but are rarely approved of by speakers.
The early day motion is straight forward, that is proposing and signing early day motions which enables MP’s to express their views , it is seen to gain publicity but no debate follows however backbenchers are able to raise issues here as well.
The select committees functions in a way that it is able to scrutinise executive away from the commons and has the power to send ‘persons papers and records’, that is that it could cross-examine ministers.
And the final procedure is correspondence with ministers, that is that it allows the MP’s to pursue cases and issues raised by constituents and is seen the main way to do so.
Therefore, over all it is clear that parliament controls the executive by passing or rejecting the executives bills as well as by forcing Ministers of the crown to answer to parliament for their actions or in the outermost cases by forcing a government to resign or call a general election. In other words one may argue that the House of Commons can force a government down this route by either voting down a motion of confidence or passing a motion of no confidence or withdrawing supply. And in any of these cases a resignation or a general election must follow.
The new government's policy agenda is outlined in the Queen's Speech, also known as the ‘Speech from the Throne’. Here the Queen at the State Opening of Parliament officially reads a speech written by the government outlining its policies and what Bills it aims to introduce into parliament. Once the speech has been delivered it is then debated and discussed in the House of Commons, allowing the MPs to approve or reject it. Sometimes other votes may be elected such as Confidence votes by the Government, which suggests that it, will resign if it does not win the vote.
On may suggests that overall in practice the House of Commons' ‘scrutiny’ of the Government is exceptionally weak as there is a first-past-the-post voting system in general elections and the governing party tends to advantage from a large majority in the Commons due to the perception that there is often a limited need for cooperation with other parties.
As well as since many governing party MP's are employed within the government, they form a large share of the so-called ‘payroll’ vote - that is when the MP’s divide to enter voting booths and cast their votes - and are averse to contradict the government in the divisions.
Modern British political parties are so tightly organised that they leave quite rather little room for free action by their MP's and the power of Parliament with regards to the notion that the Executive has without doubt declined since the late 19th century. Nonetheless, power is still exercised in a less dramatic and obvious way by select committees and by government backbenchers through the party.
In contrast one may bring forward the opposite argument that there is not much of a check by parliament on the executive power. Firstly I would like to point out that the House of Lords do not have an active role in the Legislative process any more. The House of Common’s is the main decision making body (where the majority of key debates take place), and that is where the argument may take action. There is also the fact that the House of Commons has no responsibility to take note and include the adjustments made by the House of Lords. An example to support this could be the case of the Fox Hunting ban, one may argue that even though it was postponed for two years, the Commons still managed to get it passed and made it into law. This statement could be clear evidence that even if the House of Lords do play a role in keeping the executive in check they do not have as much power as is really required suggesting that either way the executive is still going to get its way.
The open government style and the democratic system suggest that the executive should be persistently checked and kept in order; this is done via the supporting party, and those who are seen to be in opposition to the party do so via submitting questions, and discussing their views in both the House of Lords and House of Commons. However, the executive can often appeal to parliamentary acts by passing the scrutiny of the lords and the commons.
It is stated by some that there is also the encouraged discussion that Britain is becoming a more of a Presidency, which leads one to think about how responsible the executive really is. It could be argued that the measures taken are in place to keep efficient checks on the executive; however some would argue that it is doubtful whether they made use of their extensive degree.
Therefore in conclusion one may argue that the House of Commons has a clear representation of Parliament as a whole, with the leading party controlling the majority of the seats suggesting that most members of the executive or the government have clearly guaranteed votes or seats. And so if the MP’s in the Commons do not support the decisions of the executive, then it is very unlikely for them to go forth. This could be linked to the Major government debate in 1992, as many believe that it is the main reason for the defeat as many members of his cabinet did not approve of his position on the European Community issue, as well as due to the fact that the party was seen to be in such disorder that the it had caused the Conservatives to lose in the General Election of 1997.
However on the other hand, the party is not necessarily efficient in this role as many MP’s in the modern Parliament can be portrayed as career politicians, or ‘professional politicians’. One must also take into account that both the Commons and the Lords have a Parliamentary Questions session, which permit constituents to submit written questions to the MP’s and gain information and discuss grievances.
Another factor that may be seen as an opposition to the earlier argument mention of whether parliament provides an effective check on the executive power is the view which suggests that the Prime Ministers questions that currently take place every Wednesday for about half an hour where the MP’s can ask the Prime Minister questions. The arrangements for these question times must be abide by strictly however they allow opponent MO’s to set questions for the Prime Minister regarding certain policy areas or departments which will then allow for checks to be alleged on the Prime Minister and the executive. However, one must bring forward the view that this does not always show to be an efficient method of holding the executive to account as Prime Ministerial question times have been cut down in length in recent years. This decreases the number of possible questions to be asked, suggesting the risk of the Prime Minister being caught off-guard. Also the questions must be pre-prepared giving the Prime Minister and his civil servants time to study the answers and when necessary find a possible way out of answering the question directly. And finally the Prime Minister is not required to answer all questions similarly to the Senior Ministers to who also do not have to answer all questions.
Therefore, over all one may conclude that the parliament does have an effective check on the executive power however it is no longer as effective as it had been in the past as most executive members are members of the commons and so are likely to vote for rather than against and support the executive giving them more power within parliament.
Word count 2135
Referencing
Dearlove, J, Saunders, P. (2000) Introduction to British Politics, 3rd ed. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Oxford
Jones, B. (2004). Politics UK, 5th ed. Pearson Longman. Harlow
Kavanagh, D, Richards, D, Smith, M, Geddes, A. (2006) British Politics. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Leach, R, Coxall, B, Robins, L. (2006) British Politics. Palgrave Macmillan. Hampshire.
Moran, M. (2005). Politics and Governance in the UK. Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke
