This task links to the Course Assessment Specification (CAS): The legislative branch - the ability to scrutinise the actions of government.

We are going to begin this section by looking at the effectiveness of UK parliamentary representatives in holding the government to account. This is what scrutiny means - holding someone or something to account. It is checking and sometimes investigating actions of the government to ensure that it is acting in the interests of the people and upholding the principles of democracy.

You can find some relevant examples in the pdf attached to the top of this post.

An important part of a democracy is the ability of parliamentary representatives (Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords) to hold the government, or executive, to account for their actions or inactions. The main ways that the government can be held to account are:

1. Asking questions of Prime Minister during the weekly televised Prime Minister’s Question Time.
2. The role of the opposition (Currently this is the Labour Party) in forming a shadow cabinet to monitor the actions and policies of the government.
3. Select Committees that scrutinise or check the policies and decision making of the government.

Prime Minister’s Questions

Each Wednesday at noon, MPs are able to pose questions to the Prime Minister. This is known as Prime Minister’s Questions or PMQs and lasts for half an hour. There are two purposes for parliamentary questions: to seek information from ministers and to press them for action.

Watch Sir Keir Starmer question Boris Johnson about his handling of Covid-19 in terms of the UK's care home death rates, the removal of international comparison data and the lack of PPE and testing 

The leader of the opposition has the right to ask six questions of the Prime Minister. The leader of the opposition is the only parliamentary representative that is permitted to respond to the prime minister with further questions. The leader of the third-largest party in the Commons is permitted to ask two questions. These questions do not have to be shown to the Prime Minister in advance.

A ballot is held for other MPs and if they are selected by random, they may pose their question.  Unlike questions tabled to other ministers, there is no requirement to provide advance notice of the question to be asked. This is important as is shows that the government can be held to account by parliamentary representatives in a public forum. While the Prime Minister may not know all of the questions in advance, she will be extensively briefed by government departments in anticipation of likely subjects that she could be asked about. Some questions posed may cause the Prime Minister embarrassment, some questions will not be answered satisfactorily while others will be posed by the governing party in order to flatter the Prime Minister. While PMQs is a way for parliamentary representatives to scrutinise the government, it could be argued that it is limited in its effectiveness as questions can be rebuffed, not all are answered fully and some questions and answers are merely about scoring political points rather than scrutinising the actions of the government.

In September 2016, Jeremy Corbyn asked the Prime Minister at PMQs whether any experts backed her policy on grammar schools:

“I wonder if it is possible for her this morning, within the quiet confines of this House, to name any educational experts who back her proposals on new grammar schools and more selection,” he asked.

The Prime Minister responded:

“I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of education, because it enables me to point out that over the past six years, we have seen 1.4 million more children in good or outstanding schools. That is because of the changes that this Government introduced: free schools and academies, head teachers being put in charge of schools, and more choice for parents. I note that the right hon. Gentleman has opposed all those changes. What I want to see is more good school places and a diversity of provision of education in this country so that we really see opportunity for all and young people going as far as their talents will take them.”

This shows clearly that while the leader of the opposition has the opportunity to hold the Prime Minister and her government to account about policy matters, questions can be avoided and answers can be twisted to fit the political agenda that the Prime Minister wishes to advance.

The role of the opposition

The leader of the largest opposition party is the Leader of the Official Opposition. This is currently the Labour Party.

Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP, leader of the Labour Party, was the Leader of the Official Opposition from 2015-2020. Sir Keir Starmer became the Leader of the Official Opposition in April 2020 when he won the leadership of the Labour Party. The Leader of the Official Opposition picks a 'Shadow Cabinet' to follow the work of government departments. The current Home Secretary is Priti Patel (Conservative). The current shadow Home Secretary is Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour).  In this role, Ms Patel is responsible for matters relating to security and terrorism, the legislative programme and expenditure issues. 

In July 2020 the two MPs clashed over the UK Government's plans to introduce a points-based immigration system. Under the government's plans when the Brexit transition period ends, those wishing to live and work in the UK must gain 70 points. There is a mandatory requirement for visa applicants to have an offer of a job on a list of eligible occupations and speak English - earning them 50 points. There is a minimum salary requirement of £20,480. Further Points would be awarded for meeting criteria such as holding a PhD relevant to the job, or earning more than a "general salary threshold" of £25,600. The health and care visa will be open to workers who have a confirmed job offer in one of a series of "skilled" roles within the NHS or care sector - or for NHS service providers, such as doctors, nurses, radiographers, social workers and paramedics. Unions have criticised the exclusion of frontline care home workers and contractors, and pointing out that a minimum salary threshold means that many cleaners, porters and support staff would also not qualify.

Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds said: "To exclude care workers from the health visa is a clear signal that this government does not appreciate the skill and dedication these roles involve... it is yet another insult from this Tory party to those who have been at the frontline of this crisis."

Labour said it would scrutinise the proposals "very carefully", saying the government had "rushed through immigration legislation with very little detail in the middle of a global pandemic".

Read more about this here and watch the debate between Patel and Thomas-Symonds in the Commons here.

This shows that the shadow cabinet can be an effective way in which the work of the government can be scrutinised as each shadow minister can examine closely the work of each government department and develop policies in their specific areas. Shadow ministers are ideally placed to follow carefully the work of their counterpart in the Cabinet and can therefore hold to account the government for their policies and actions. Shadow ministers will use the media to highlight concerns and this can also facilitate government scrutiny.

Given that the current Conservative government boasts the majority of MPs in the House of Commons, it has the ability to set the political agenda and pass legislation it wishes either through a vote in the Commons or through secondary legislation known as statutory instruments (SIs) where an existing law is amended or information is added by ministers (or other bodies) under powers given to them by an Act of Parliament. This removes the requirement for the reading of a Bill. This means that it can be difficult for the opposition to scrutinise legislation being passed. There are approximately 3,500 SIs made each year, although only about 1,000 need to be considered by Parliament.  (An average of 3,000 UK SI were issued annually from 2010 to June 2019) .Parliament can either approve or reject an SI, but cannot amend it.

80% of SIs are laid out under what is known as the negative procedure. Negative SIs do not need active approval by Parliament. Usually negative SIs are signed by the minister before being laid in Parliament.  An SI laid under the negative procedure becomes law on the day the Minister signs it and automatically remains law unless a motion – or ‘prayer’ – to reject it is agreed by either House within 40 sitting days. This shows clearly that SIs laid out under the negative procedure are difficult to reject and in fact a successful motion to stop SIs is rare. This means that the ability of the opposition to scrutinise the government can be hindered and ineffective when holding the government to account over secondary legislation. It could also be argued that these powers of the government are undemocratic as it removes the need for parliamentary approval and it damages the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.

Since 28 January, 256 of the statutory instruments related to coronavirus have been laid before parliament, an astonishing 122 of which breach the 21-day rule giving MPs time to scrutinise them. Read more here.

The role of Select Committees

Select committees are responsible for scrutinising the work of government.  They have the capacity to hold to account the decision-making of the government and call upon individuals to answer criticisms. Select Committees work in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. They will conduct investigations, write reports and provide recommendations. The results of these inquiries are public and many require a response from the government.

One example of the work of a Select Committee is the Foreign Affairs Committee Enquiry (2016) which investigated the UK’s actions in Libya in 2011. As part of the protest movement in the Middle East, beginning in Tunisia in December 2010, demonstrations commenced in Libya on 15 February 2011, when anti-Gaddafi protests erupted in Benghazi. By the end of February 2011, the Gaddafi regime had lost control of a significant part of Libya, including the major cities of Misrata and Benghazi. 5. In March 2011, pro-Gaddafi forces launched a counter-offensive against the rebels that reached the outskirts of Benghazi. In response, the United Nations Security Council agreed Resolution 1973 on 17 March, which authorised member states to establish and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and to use “all necessary measures” to prevent attacks on civilians. A coalition of nations including the UK and USA contributed military assets to enforce Resolution 1973. Parliament approved the UK’s participation in the military intervention following a debate on 21 March 2011 by a vote of 557 to 13.

The Foreign Affairs Committee appointed Professor Toby Dodge, London School of Economics, as a Specialist Adviser at the start of the 2015 Parliament to provide ongoing advice on events in the Middle East. In addition, it engaged Joseph Walker-Cousins, the former Head of the British Embassy Office in Benghazi, to act as Specialist Adviser for this particular inquiry. The Committee heard from all but one of the key British protagonists involved in the decision to intervene in Libya in 2011. It invited the then Prime Minister right hon. David Cameron MP to provide oral evidence to the inquiry in March 2016. He declined this invitation citing “the pressures on his diary”. The Committee members visited North Africa in March 2016, when they met Libyan politicians along with Egyptian and Tunisian politicians and policymakers. The Committee concluded:

“We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. It may be that the UK Government was unable to analyse the nature of the rebellion in Libya due to incomplete intelligence and insufficient institutional insight and that it was caught up in events as they developed. It could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime; it selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value; and it failed to identify the militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”

Watch a news report on these Committee findings here.

The House of Commons Liaison Committee is made up of Select Committee Chairs. It considers the overall work of select committees, promotes effective scrutiny of Government, and chooses committee reports for debates. It questions the Prime Minister about policy, usually three times a year. In May 2020 the Committee questioned Johnson about the government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic and the actions of his senior adviser, Dominic Cummings and his alleged breaking of the lockdown rules.

Select Committees are often regarded as one of the most effective strategies that parliamentary representatives can hold the government to account. This is because they investigate government policies and legislation among other important issues. They have the ability to hold government ministers to account and urge them to respond to their recommendations. The Government will normally make a response within two months of the publication of the Committee’s report. This can be considered an effective form of scrutiny as many of these committees are high profile and attract a great deal of media attention. This can often push government ministers to respond and act according to the recommendations that the Committee has made. Writing for the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), The Hansard Society’s Matt Korris claims that, “Select committees are one of the great success stories of Parliament. Over the last 30 years they have become the principal mechanism through which the House of Commons holds the executive to account and have influenced the direction of government policy and legislation”. However, Korris also claims that the Committees face an increasing work load which can make effective scrutiny difficult. He also claims that committees should focus on how they follow-up their work and recommendations: “The current model encourages committees to undertake inquiries, hold hearings and produce reports, but then often leave the subject entirely and move on to other things. Committees should seek to maintain a watching brief on areas they have scrutinised, examining whether their recommendations have been implemented, and calling ministers to fresh evidence sessions to account for progress.” This indicates that although the Select Committees do perform an important role in holding the government to account it can be the case that their recommendations are not followed up and since they do not have any legal powers to ensure that individuals appear before them, their ability to scrutinise effectively is limited. 

WATCH BORIS JOHNSON BEING HELD TO ACCOUNT IN THE LIAISON COMMITTEE ON 13/01/2021

Evaluation

It would be fair to suggest that there are ways in which the government can be held to account or scrutinised by parliamentary representatives. While PMQs can offer a public means through which MPs can question the Prime Minister, it could be argued that this is more parliamentary theatre and about political point scoring than true and effective scrutiny. Furthermore, the role of the opposition should be to act as a viable government-in-waiting monitoring government actions in terms of policy, legislation and expenditure among other issues. Without a strong opposition party it could be argued that effective scrutiny is not possible and the current Labour party’s ability to scrutinise the government has been overshadowed by its own issues surrounding anti-Semitism and bullying. An opposition party riven with in-fighting and breaking apart is not an effective body through which effective scrutiny can be achieved. Therefore, of all the vehicles through which scrutiny can be achieved, the Select committees should be considered the most effective, even with their clear limitations. If the committees are able to follow-up more rigorously on their own recommendations it is possible that real and effective scrutiny of the government could take place. It is certainly the case that when high-profile investigations of the Select Committees are publicised in the media and therefore become public knowledge, scrutiny of the government can take place and ministers can be forced to act upon the recommendations made by the committees.

So we have now looked at three ways that the UK legislative branch is able to scrutinise the actions of the government:

1. Asking questions of Prime Minister during the weekly televised Prime Minister’s Question Time.
2. The role of the opposition in forming a shadow cabinet to monitor the actions and policies of the government.
3. Select Committees that scrutinise or check the policies and decision making of the government.

In your view, which of the three examples of scrutiny are the most effective? Can you explain your view and provide an example to back up your view? Post your idea in the comments below: