Sample Answer for Parliament is effective at scrutinising the Executive in the UK

Evaluate the view that Parliament is effective at scrutinising the Executive in the UK (30 Marks)

Legislative Scrutiny

Legislation is one of Parliament's key functions and is therefore a critical element of executive scrutiny. Under Standing Order 14, the legislative agenda is predominantly controlled by the Executive. Most bills are Government Bills, with 76.9% of bills from 2015–2021 originating from the Executive. This dominance over the Commons agenda is reinforced by the concept of an elective dictatorship, whereby the FPTP voting system often gives governments a clear majority, enabling them to govern with little effective scrutiny. For instance, Tony Blair's government, with a majority of 179, did not lose a single Commons vote in his first eight years as Prime Minister, while the average majority since 1945 has been 57.4 seats. Consequently, the Executive typically has the parliamentary arithmetic to push its legislative agenda.

Additionally, MPs are subject to intense party whipping, resulting in rare instances of rebellion against party leadership. This reliance on party support for re-election and the patronage system for career advancement often discourages dissent. For example, since the 2019 General Election, 321 MPs have never voted against their own party. These factors—the combination of large government majorities and stringent party discipline—render legislative scrutiny in the Commons ineffective. However, in certain instances, the House of Commons does provide effective scrutiny, particularly on controversial or significant issues where MPs are willing to defy the whip. For instance, Theresa May's Brexit deal was defeated by 230 votes in January 2019, with 118 Conservative MPs rebelling during a confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP. This illustrates that the effectiveness of legislative scrutiny can depend on the issue and the size of the government majority.

The House of Lords is often regarded as providing more effective legislative scrutiny due to its independence, expertise, and time devoted to examining bills. For example, while the Agriculture Act (2020) was scrutinized for 32 hours in the Commons, it underwent 96 hours of review in the Lords. Furthermore, Lords are appointed based on expertise, such as Lord West, a former First Sea Lord and Intelligence Minister, who has voted 725 times on military and diplomatic matters. The Lords are also less subject to party control, with 184 crossbench peers and 26 Bishops contributing to a collegiate atmosphere. However, despite these strengths, the Lords' capacity for scrutiny is structurally limited by both statute and convention. The Parliament Acts prevent the Lords from blocking Commons legislation, while conventions like the Salisbury Convention and Financial Privilege further curtail its power. Overall, the scrutiny of Government legislation remains ineffective. While the House of Lords provides some checks, these are undermined by its limited authority, and the Commons is largely ineffective due to government dominance.

Role of Backbenchers

Backbench MPs face significant limitations in scrutinizing the Government within the House of Commons. Unlike many Lords, backbenchers must act as generalists, representing diverse opinions and concerns across their constituencies. For instance, as of February 2022, Conservative MP Huw Merriman's last ten parliamentary questions covered a broad range of topics, from tourism to knife crime. Additionally, backbenchers have limited power to initiate legislation. Private Members' Bills (PMBs) rarely succeed, with only 16.2% becoming law since 2015. Often, these bills serve to draw attention to an issue rather than achieve legislative change. For example, Christopher Chope has introduced 119 PMBs since 2015, none of which have become law.

Despite these constraints, backbenchers can sometimes influence policy. Experienced or high-profile MPs, like Theresa May, have succeeded in shaping legislation; for instance, May's Ten Minute Rule motion on dangerous driving sentences was incorporated into the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill. The 2009 Wright Reforms have also empowered backbenchers by creating the Backbench Business Committee, which allows them to propose debates scrutinizing the Government. For example, on April 21, a backbench debate was held on the two-child limit for Universal Credit—a core government policy. Furthermore, reforms to Select Committees have enhanced their independence, with chairs now elected by the whole House and members elected by their parties. This independence allows committees like the DCMS Select Committee to criticize Government proposals, such as the Online Safety Bill, even when the majority of the committee belongs to the governing party. While backbenchers remain limited in their ability to hold the Executive to account, their influence is growing, with certain MPs playing a significant role in scrutiny.

Question Time

Question Time is one of the most visible mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny, with Prime Ministers' Questions (PMQs) serving as its centerpiece every Wednesday at noon. PMQs involve the Prime Minister facing questions from MPs, including six from the Leader of the Opposition. However, PMQs is often characterized by theatrics and political point-scoring rather than substantive scrutiny. For example, during the "partygate" scandal, Diana Johnson criticized the Prime Minister, suggesting he was "trying to convince people he was stupid rather than dishonest." Similarly, Prime Ministers often avoid giving detailed answers during PMQs. Nevertheless, PMQs should not be viewed as representative of all Question Time sessions. Daily departmental question sessions from Monday to Thursday are far more substantive, with MPs submitting questions in advance or in writing to elicit detailed responses.

Since John Bercow's tenure as Speaker, the use of Urgent Questions (UQs) and Emergency Debates has increased significantly. Bercow granted 0.88 UQs per day on average, compared to just 0.02 under his predecessor, enabling immediate government accountability. This trend has continued under Lindsay Hoyle. Emergency Debates, such as the one held to address the Ukraine crisis, allow MPs to question the Government in depth about its actions. Thus, while PMQs is often seen as ineffectual, other forms of Question Time demonstrate that MPs can hold Ministers to account.

Conclusion

In conclusion, parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive is predominantly ineffectual. This is largely due to the dominance of the House of Commons, where the fusion of powers ensures the Government typically controls the agenda. While exceptions occur during periods of weak government majorities, these are rare. The House of Lords provides detailed legislative scrutiny but is constrained by its limited powers. Select Committees and Question Time provide some mechanisms for holding the Executive to account, but their inability to enforce change fundamentally limits their effectiveness. As a result, the Executive's dominance over Parliament ensures that scrutiny remains largely superficial.