How effective is Parliament at holding Government to account
Effective
Backbenchers
Difference in the support of backbenchers
depending on where Government is in their termstart, middle, end. Usually the start is a Honeymoon
period of wanting to agree with their party and
leadership. Middle they may become more
disheartened and end back to being loyal as they
want re-elected.
Linked with Prime Ministers power of Patronagewant to be promoted and so pressure to stay in line.
Depends on type of Government-Majority-big or
small.
Big-Backbenchers may not always vote with their
government if there is a big majority as they may
feel that they are not as essential to their party and
can go with their own feelings.
Small-Backbenchers will often vote with their party
when they aware that they are essential to policy
and actual feel more loyalty during small majoritiesWorking tax credit vote in the H of C. Many do not
agree but will vote with their government. Start of a
new term, small majority.
Coalition- Backbenchers often do not vote with their
party in a coalition as it may not be part of their own
party agenda. Lib dems tuition fees.
Votes in Commons: e.g. in 2013 MPs voted against a
government motion urging British military
involvement in Syria, defeating the PM.
PMQs - In his 2010 autobiography, former PM Tony
Blair called PMQs ‘the most nerve-wracking
experience in his Prime Ministerial life’, showing its
ability to unnerve and control the PM to some
extent. E.g. in 2015 Opposition leader Jeremy
Corbyn asked PM Cameron 6 times to explain the
policy of working tax. Cameron deflected on the
issue stating that he would publicise changes in the
next statement. This showed him to be weak and
indecisive. It alerted the public to the fact that this
cut was not directly mentioned in his manifesto.
Not effective
3 line whip usually works –e.g. despite large
Conservative backbench rebellion voting in
favour of referendum on whether Britain
should remain in the EU in 2011, PM Cameron
imposed whip as he did not want referendum
and rebellion failed to defeat PM.
Also, the Fawcett Society have claimed
there is ‘something unhealthy about the UK’s
political culture’ which they identify as
‘aggressive, knock-about and sexist’. Sarah
Champion, the MP for Rotherham, described
the levels of sexist abuse she encountered in
the Chamber as ‘utterly appalling’. Speaker
of the Commons John Bercow has said that
some women MPs have told him that the
atmosphere at PMQs is so bad that they no
longer attend. Clearly therefore, many feel
the Commons is an arena for cheap political
point scoring and therefore limited in its
effectiveness in holding the Executive
branch to account.
How effective is Parliament at holding Government to account
Effect-people/press/backbenchers can loose
confidence in him as a leader and party as a strong
Govt. Backbenchers feel demoralised if the prime
minister is not performing well. He needs them on
side.
Not significant actual impact, other than affecting
public perception. Remember, the prime minister is
not directly elected like the President so does not
have as firm a position. If becomes disliked then
party can have a vote of no confidence in him.
Events in the Commons generate publicity in the
media, so it is perhaps the best place to hold the
Government to account. Migrant crisis example
Harriet Harman after election asked about Britain’s
response to the Migrant Crisis July 2015. This along
with public and press pressure pushed the Prime
Minister into his promise to allow 20,000 Syrian
migrants into UK in the next 5 years.
Events- Migrant crisis 2015. Failing generally on
migrant policy –tough to control migration and with
migrant crisis, Govt is under control to take more
immigrants for humanitarian reasons.
Europe-EU referendum coming up. PM wants to stay
in the EU but needs to renegotiate terms to ensure
that the vote goes with him. Needs to keep friends
in Europe so need to look like he is doing as much as
other countries but need to appease those against
immigration too. A very tricky position for
Conservatives.
House of Lords – The unelected second chamber of
the UK Parliament. Its members have experience and
expertise in fields such as politics, law, business,
education, health and science, which scrutinise and
review legislation passed from the Commons. They
can delay and amend bills. First time since 1990s
that it has less than a majority in the H of L. E.g. in
2012 they made changes to proposed government
cuts to Legal Aid, voting to exempt victims of
domestic abuse from the cuts. The PM and
Supremacy of Commons and govt over Lords,
Lords can only delay bills for a maximum of
year, not indefinitely. E.g. Lords
recommended changes to the 2012 Welfare
Reform Bill but the Commons overturned all
these changes using ‘financial privilege’.
Also, PM appoints many of the members of
the House of Lords, so it is limited.
How effective is Parliament at holding Government to account
Government then agreed to these changes, and then
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke called this a ’major
concession’, showing the power of the Lords to limit
the PM and the Govt.
Key example 2015 Working Tax Credit reformsHouse of Lords voted to delay this proposal
demanding that the Government reveal the impact of
the cuts.
Cameron wants to get more involved in Syria but
after the failure in the H of C in 2013, he is
uncertain of H of C support and now cannot be
certain of support from H of L. This has a serious
impact on the Govt approach to Syria. Example of
weakness of PM and executive by parliament.
Select Committees scrutinise govt bills and hold govt
and PM to account by calling witnesses, hearing
evidence, and writing reports to recommend policy to
the Government. E.g. In 2014 Liaison Committee
called PM David Cameron before them and
questioned him for an hour and a half on gender
equality, Female Genital Mutilation, and his response
to the floods in England.
Backbench committee:
Established by Gordon Brown 2010 after expenses
scandal 2007-2008. More accountability and role of
backbenchers. Stop the disengagement of
backbenchers. Now they set the business agenda of
the H of C and decide who chairs committees. An
important power which was previously under the PM
patronage power so reduces that. Backbenchers can
now hold their own debates which the frontbenchers
may have disregarded. Empowered backbenchers and
gave them a valid chance to scrutinise the executive.
John Bercow speaker in H of C has instigated 24hour
emergency debates and so empowering
backbenchers. Theresa May brought in to explain
border agency powers. Previous she could have
delayed an announcement but now they have to come
in and explain at 24 hour notice.
Committees are arguably more effective than the
Commons at holding Government to account as they
However, if govt has large majority (e.g
Blair’s Labour won landslide in 1997) then
Select Committes will mostly be made up of
Govt MPs, who may not ask awkward
questions like the Opposition would.
The Govt is under no obligation to act upon
recommendations made by committees, so it
could be argued that Committees are limited
in their ability to hold the Executive to
account, especially as committees do not
generate significant media coverage.
In saying that, the lack of media coverage
allied with a civilised and calm atmosphere
may make Ministers more relaxed and candid
when giving evidence, meaning the
Committees can be an effective way to
expose truths.
How effective is Parliament at holding Government to account
are cross-party and have more time to question,
meaning Ministers may struggle to get away with the
evasive sound bite which they may use in the
Commons.