does parliament have control of legislation

• argument 1: Executive dominance in parliament

  The government, especially when it holds a majority in the House of Commons -> dominates the legislative agenda and can use procedural tools such as 'guillotine motions' to limit debate -> its legislation passes with minimal opposition -> Government defeats on legislation are rare under majority governments -> As of june 2025 - 26 bills passed - no defeats by labour -> even if they incur setbacks like winter fuel payments and MP rebellions -> PM shows dominance as governing party's leader
• argument against 1: Parliamentary sovereignty - parliament is supreme and superior to the exec - Britain leasing Chagos islands back to Mauritius -> Shows how parliament can amend bills and laws including those affected by international treaties and territorial arrangement -> This process highlights that, despite international pressures and longstanding disputes, it is Parliament that has the final say over such significant legal changes, reaffirming the principle of parliamentary sovereignty
• argument 2: Party Discipline

  • The fusion of the executive and legislative branches, coupled with strong party discipline, often means MPs are reluctant to rebel against their party, limiting independent scrutiny of government proposals. -> Labour Party’s enforcement of a three-line whip on its MPs regarding the two-child benefit cap: when seven Labour MPs defied the party line and voted against the government, they had the whip removed, effectively suspending them from the parliamentary party -> This demonstrates how party discipline and the threat of sanctions discourage MPs from challenging their party leadership, reinforcing executive control over the legislative process
• Counter argument 2: Committee scrutiny allows Public Bill Committees and other parliamentary committees to examine bills in detail, take evidence from experts and stakeholders, and sometimes force the government to make substantive policy changes in response to parliamentary pressure -> committee stage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill in 2025, where MPs took oral evidence from witnesses and scrutinised the bill clause by clause -> significant amendments, such as removing requirements for developers to provide preliminary environmental information -> consult with relevant parties, which were debated and examined in detail by the committee before votes were held on new clauses and amendments. This process demonstrates how committee scrutiny can lead to changes or justification of government policy in response to parliamentary examination.
• Argument 3: Secondary legislation, is subject to much less parliamentary scrutiny than primary legislation. Most statutory instruments are processed using either the negative or affirmative procedure -> committees in the House of Lords and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments do examine these instruments. -> However, their focus is usually on technical quality or policy merits, and their reports may draw attention to concerns but do not stop the legislation from proceeding unless Parliament takes further action. -> A recent example is the draft Scotland Act 1998 Order 2025. This statutory instrument was debated in a Legislation Committee, but when it reached the House of Commons, MPs could only vote for or against it -> no amend the details or hold an extensive debate -> how important policy changes can be made through secondary legislation with only limited parliamentary oversight.
• Counter argument 3: Occasional Rebellions and Amendments

  • Even under strong governments, backbench rebellions and cross-party alliances can defeat or amend government proposals
  • For instance, in the 2024–25 session alone, the Labour government suffered 52 defeats in the House of Lords as of May 2025, with peers successfully amending or challenging government legislation on numerous occasions.
  •  A specific case is the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, where the government faced several defeats on amendments in the Lords, forcing it to reconsider its proposals during the “ping-pong” process between the two Houses. These defeats and subsequent negotiations show that Parliament can compel the government to accept changes