11.2.1 The influence and effectiveness of Parliament in holding the Executive to account.

---

Reasons why Parliamentary scrutiny is seen as ineffective:

Control of Parliamentary Business by the Government:

• The government exerts significant influence over the agenda and schedule of Parliament, which limits the opposition's ability to debate and challenge government legislation effectively.
• This allows the executive to retain full control of bills debated and passed, with little opposition and prevents bills from achieving necessary scrutiny.

Dominance in Public Bill Committees:

• This prevents legislation from being properly scrutinised, leading to legislation which has not been thoroughly analysed to reflect the will of the people.

Large Parliamentary Majorities:

• A government with a substantial majority in Parliament can usually count on the support of its MPs to pass its legislative agenda with minimal resistance.

Secondary Legislation:

• The government has the ability to change laws through secondary legislation, which receives far less scrutiny from the House of Commons compared to primary legislation, thus reducing parliamentary oversight.

• These laws do not require a vote in the House of Commons

Prime Minister's Powers of Patronage:

Royal Prerogative Powers:

• The Prime Minister can make significant decisions, such as deploying military forces, without requiring parliamentary approval, as demonstrated by Theresa May in 2018 when she ordered airstrikes on Syrian chemical installations without consulting Parliament.

Salisbury Convention:

• The Salisbury Convention stipulates that the House of Lords should not block government legislation that was part of the governing party's election manifesto, as this would contradict the democratic mandate given by the electorate.
• This prevents legislation from undergoing scrutiny which tends to be less politically motivated than the house of commons, from experts in their fields.

---

Dynamic Relationship Between Parliament and the Executive

• The effectiveness of Parliament in holding the executive to account can vary depending on political circumstances. For example, a government with a small majority or no majority at all may struggle to pass its legislative agenda, especially if it cannot rely on the full support of its backbench MPs. In such cases, both the House of Commons and the House of Lords can become more assertive.
• Additionally, if the opposition is united under a strong leader who is seen as a potential future Prime Minister, this can weaken the government's confidence and make it more susceptible to parliamentary challenges.

---

Example of Weak Parliamentary Influence

Margaret Thatcher's Leadership (1979-1987):

• During this period, Margaret Thatcher's strong leadership of the Conservative Party coincided with a divided Labour Party, which weakened its ability to effectively challenge her policies. The split in the Labour Party led to the formation of the Social Democratic Party in 1981, further weakening opposition efforts. Thatcher's victory in the Falklands War and the subsequent increase in her parliamentary majority in 1983 left opposition leaders like Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock largely unable to effectively challenge her in Parliament.

---

The Increasing Strength of Parliamentary Control over Government

Enhanced Parliamentary Scrutiny:

• Despite criticism of mechanisms like the Prime Minister's Question Time for being more theatrical than substantive, several reforms have made both the House of Commons and the House of Lords stronger in holding the government to account.

House of Commons Reforms:

• In 2009, the 'Rebuilding the House' report, led by former Labour MP Tony Wright, recommended increasing the influence of backbench MPs. These recommendations were implemented in the coalition government's parliamentary reform agenda.
• Backbench Business Committee: Established in 2010, this committee empowers backbench MPs to choose topics for debate on 35 days per parliamentary session. This allows them to raise and discuss issues regardless of government approval, providing a crucial platform for non-government voices.
• Select Committees: Since 2010, the chairs of select committees are elected by a secret ballot of all MPs, and members by a ballot within their parties. This change from the previous system, where party whips controlled appointments, has increased the independence and authority of these committees, enhancing their ability to scrutinize government actions effectively.

Public Accounts Committee:

• As Parliament's most crucial committee, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) oversees government spending to ensure value for money. Rather than questioning the policy itself, the PAC focuses on financial efficiency. For instance, in 2018, PAC Chair Meg Hillier criticized the government for mismanaging police funding, emphasizing the committee's role in holding the government accountable for financial oversight.

Parliament's Influence on Military Action:

• Although not legally required, since 2003, there has been an expectation that the government will seek parliamentary approval before engaging in military action. This informal convention strengthens parliamentary oversight. However, it remains a gray area, as seen in 2018 when Theresa May bypassed Parliament using royal prerogative to authorize airstrikes on Syria.

Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011:

• This Act was intended to limit the Prime Minister's power to dissolve Parliament and call elections at will. However, it still allows a general election if two-thirds of MPs agree, as seen when Theresa May successfully called an early election in 2017. While this reform aimed to curtail executive power, in practice, the Prime Minister retains considerable influence over election timing.

Strengthening of the House of Lords:

• The removal of most hereditary peers and their replacement with life peers has made the House of Lords more balanced and less dominated by Conservatives. This change has led to a more assertive House that is more willing to challenge the government. Between 1999 and 2010, the Labour government faced over 450 defeats in the Lords, including blocking attempts to extend detention of terrorist suspects.
• The Lords continue to play a significant role in challenging government actions. For example, in 2015, they controversially opposed George Osborne's proposed tax credit cuts, and in 2018, they were active in amending the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, demonstrating their growing confidence in exerting influence.

Significance of Parliamentary Debate:

• Parliamentary debates can have a substantial impact on government decisions. In 2013, David Cameron's proposal for military strikes against Syria was defeated in the House of Commons, largely due to MPs being unconvinced by the government's case. This outcome highlights the potential power of parliamentary debate to shape national policy, especially when the government fails to secure broad support.

Increased Assertiveness of the House of Lords:

• The House of Lords has become increasingly bold in challenging government legislation. For instance, during the debates over the EU (Withdrawal) Bill in 2018, the Lords proposed several amendments, which were seen by many as giving the Commons a valuable opportunity to thoroughly debate the terms of Brexit. This growing assertiveness, however, raises concerns about the balance between revising legislation and acting as an opposition force.

---

Example of Strong Parliamentary influence:

Theresa May's Premiership (2016-2019):

• Theresa May's tenure as Prime Minister was marked by a series of challenges that highlighted the limitations of her leadership and the resulting weakness of parliamentary influence over the executive.
• 2017 General Election: In an attempt to strengthen her mandate, May called a snap general election in 2017. However, this decision backfired as the Conservative Party lost its parliamentary majority, forcing May to rely on the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) for a supply and confidence agreement. This loss of majority significantly weakened her government's ability to pass legislation and exposed her leadership to constant challenges.
• Brexit Negotiations and Parliamentary Rebellion: May's leadership was further undermined by her handling of Brexit negotiations. The deal she negotiated with the EU faced widespread opposition across the political spectrum, including from within her own party. This led to a series of historic defeats in the House of Commons, where her Brexit deal was rejected multiple times, reflecting the erosion of her authority and the influence of Parliament in shaping the Brexit process.
• Backbench Rebellion and Leadership Challenges: Throughout her time in office, May faced significant opposition from both pro-Brexit and pro-Remain factions within her party. This internal division culminated in a vote of no confidence within the Conservative Party in December 2018, which she survived, but only with a weakened position. The constant threat of rebellion from her own backbenchers further limited her ability to govern effectively.
• Resignation: Ultimately, Theresa May's inability to secure parliamentary support for her Brexit deal and the persistent challenges to her leadership led to her resignation in May 2019. Her premiership serves as an example of how weak leadership and internal party divisions can significantly diminish the government's control over Parliament and its ability to implement its legislative agenda.

---

"Is Parliament effective in scrutinising the government"

PMQs:

HoL: