Holding Gov't to account

• Intro - Define?

  Parliament is the legislative branch of the government
• Intro - Context?

  Recently, government scandals and behaviour, especially, due to Covid-19, has brought the effectiveness of Parliament in holding govt to account into question.
• Intro - Answer?


  This essay will demonstrate that Parliament does hold the government to account by looking at Select Committees, Ministerial Question Time and legislative scrutiny.
• P1 - weaker point ?

  The weaker argument would argue that the select committees role is ineffective in holding the gov't to account because a majority of select committee members are drawn from the governing party.
• P1 weaker evidence?

  There is a tradition that the influential treasury, foreign affairs and defense committees are chaired by MPs of the governing party.
• P1 weaker explain?

  This limits their independence from the government and the liklehood they will hold the government to account effectively. Additionally, even S.C. not headed by the governing party can only cover a limited range of topics in depth, therefore, limiting their ability to hold the gov't to account across all areas of policy and governance.
• P1 Strong point?

  However, the stronger argument would recognise reform of select committees have increased their effectiveness in holding the govt to account.
• P1 Strong evidence?

  For instance, the Wright reform has made S.C. more independent from the gov't. As S.C. are no longer chosen by party whips, which has allowed prominent backbench MPs who oppose the govt on key issues obtain key roles e.g. Caroline Nokes. Work of S.C. is also evidence based with televised hearings, increasing credibility and influence e.g. Privlieges S.C. scrutinised BoJo about partygate.
• P1 Evaluation?


  Overall, S.C are effective in holding the govt to account. Though they can only investigate a limited number of topics, the fact that tthey can draw from expertise and scrutinise in a calm professional way means they gain media coverage. Consequently, holding the gov't to account by ensuring they answer questions honestly and without mis-leading parliament.
• P2 weaker point?

  The weaker argument would argue that PMQ's provides little effective scrutiny that is focused more on partisan political point scroring than proper scrutiny.
• P2 weaker evidence?

  Ministers and PM's often give political answers, intended to deflect and get soundbites for social media clips, rather than honesty. Additionally, many gov't backbenchers ask qestions drafted by whips, intended to flatter the gov't not scrutinise. Such as "does the gov't agree the gov't is doing a great job in this area".
• P2 stronger point?

  The stronger argument would recognise the role of the opposition during PMQ's. In which they ask questions directly to the governing party - 6 for the leader of opposition and 2 for leader of the 3rd largest party.
• P2 strong evidence?

  Giving them the opportunity to get the gov't to respond to their failures or demonstrate the lack of one. Therefore, allowing them to hold them account and suggest how to improve.
• P2 strong explain?

  The leader of opposition also plays a role in the effectiveness of scrutiny of the govt. e.g. govt Corbyn made a habit of asking questions directly from the public and Starmer has experience as a prosecutor.
• P2 Evaluation?


  Overall, even though scrutiny of some questions may be limited as it is partisan, PMQ's does effectively scrutinise the gov't. Allowing the opposition to ask direct questions to the govt, publicly.
• P3 Weak point?

  The weaker argument would argue that Parliament's legislative scrutiny isn't effective in holding the gov't to accoint, as the gov't controls most of the parliamentary timetable.
• P3 weak evidence?

  In recent years they have rushed legislation throught the HofC, therefore, limiting effective scrutiny from backbenchers in public bill committees. E.g. the illegal Migration Bill was passed with only 2 days of scrutiny in the committee of the house.
• P3 strong point?

  However, the stronger argument would recognise that Parliament is effective at legislative scrutiny due to the House of Lords.
• P3 Strong explanation?

  Especially, because the gov't has control of parliamentary timetable in commons the lords us crucial in making amendmend to bills in order to improve them.
• P3 strong evidence?

  E.g. 2018 EU withdrawal bill was amended by the house of lords to me sure the UK would be legally allowed to participate in EU agencies if it chooses.
• P3 Evaluation?

  Even when gov't has a large majority, the House of Lords provides legislative scrutiny; not being up for promotion or pressure by party whips, therefore, in some ways can be more impartial than House of Commons towards legislative scrutiny.