Overall Themes:

1. Effectiveness of scrutiny

2. House of Lords Reform

3. Reforms to be more democratic

4. Role of Backbenchers

Past Paper Questions:

Evaluate the view that Prime Ministers Questions should be abolished and replaced by other forms of parliamentary scrutiny of the executive.

Evaluate the view that parliament is effective in carrying out its work of scrutinising the Government. → Lords, backbenchers, opposition

Backbenchers offer the most effective form of scrutiny:  

Power over their party leaders e.g. groups like the 1922 committee can directly impact party direction and leadership, vitally scrutinising the work of the PM via votes of no confidence, also the Backbench Business Committee, created post Wright reforms getting 35 days of parliamentary business, significant when parliament controls agenda, can be successful e.g. Hillsborough in 2012  

Most powerful form of scrutiny is their power to rebel e.g. May faced 15 rebellions, Blair forced to back down on his proposal to detain suspects for up to 90 days, 2012 rebellion on HoL reform, frustrations of May’s rebellion  

BUT

the effectiveness of backbenchers depends on the size of a governments majority e.g. powerful governments can survive rebellions; Tony Blair faced the largest rebellion over Iraq war, but policies went through regardless, coalition government faced 35% rebellions compared to 28% under Blair – because of the nature of FPTP and winner’s bonus government scrutiny is weak 

Also, backbenchers are whipped, and if they want to be re-elected, they depend on the party e.g. David Gauke, Johnson removed whip from 21 MPs  

Lords offer some degree of scrutiny:  

Have significantly more time to dedicate to scrutiny, spending about 60% of their time scrutinising, spent 96 hours compared to 32 on the 2020 Agriculture Bill, also don’t have the same amount of pressure from the government e.g. weaker whip enforcement, life peerage, 180 crossbenchers, also degree of scrutiny they can offer is unchanging (not really impacted by strong majorities as much as backbenchers), also greater expertise,  

BUT

select committees also have expertise, fundamentally limited due to their unelected nature, 1911, 1945 and 1999 reforms fundamentally limit their enforcement power e.g. Rwanda bill ping-pong around 20 times but still go through, Hunting act 2004 can only be delayed for a year  

Opposition: 

Have greater resources from Short money (just under £7 million for Labour) and salaried jobs in opposition, also have greater media attention e.g. debates like PMQs (whereas backbenchers have less guaranteed time on PMQs), also they act in opposition to the government so have a greater motivation to scrutinise the government because they are not from the same party  

BUT

they are limited because they have just lost an election (scrutiny is better when an election is coming up, not having just lost – variable factor), money is dependent on the government (2016 – conservatives changed short money from based on retail price index to consumer price index), also they can’t control the agenda and government can take over opposition policy e.g. Hunt 

Evaluate the view that the House of Lords is in need of major reform. → scrutiny, independence, representation

Scrutiny:

most vital role in holding government ‘to account’ and scrutinising their work

able to give up far more time to debate e.g. 96 hours on agriculture bill 2020 vs 32 hours

many peers are experts such as transport and education, human rights etc

Increased expertise enables more effective scrutiny and lets them hold government to account

Several key bills have been amended e.g. Article 50, Sunday Trading and EVEL

cannot enforce their power but can have a significant influence

BUT

this power is undermined by their lack of democratic legitimacy

none of the 809 are elected, 92 hold hereditary seats, more of an issue because attempts to reform (1999, 2014 coalition) have been stopped/limited by the lords

also can ignore the conventions limiting their power e.g. 2015 labour dominated HoL rejecting government proposals about tax credit cuts

Independence:

another advantage is the independence of thought that the HoL has

No party whip influence, vote on bills independently and in a bi-partisan manner

Also around 180 crossbench MPs, not an entirely political body

Crossbenchers essential for scrutiny and debate

BUT

although this suggests a lack of politicisation, the appointments proccess hugely undermines the independence of the lords

Cameron appointed 16 political allies

Nigel Farage claimed brexit party supporters had been offered peerages to keep them on side

Also still often vote according to party lines e.g. Free School meals bill, voted completely according to party divisions

also hugely affected by winner’s bonus and FPTP because strength in Lords is proportional to strength in Commons

capacity to act independently and therefore carry out scrutiny is undermined

Representation:

Has become increasingly representative

House of Lords Appointment Commission as an independent body, effective and just appointments

Has 26 Lord Spirituals but also has other religious representatives

Might lack democratic legitimacy but can represent a wider non-political class

Important representatives such as Baroness Lawrence

However, does not go far enough at all

Average age of peers is 70, only 29% female and 6% ethnic minorities

unequal representation undermines the benefits the Lords could have

Although descriptive representation does not entirely cause political representations, there are strong correlations e.g. all of the hereditary peers are white, older than average age and Conservative

Worsens issue of them being an unelected body, do not even represent the UK in a descriptive sense

Evaluate how far reforms since 1997 have made Parliament a more democratic institution. → Lords reform, AV,

Using the source, evaluate the arangements in favour of an elected second chamber.

Using the source, evaluate the view that Prime Ministers Questions should be abolished and replaced by other forms of parliamentary scrutiny of the executive.

Evaluate the view that the principal role of backbench MPs is now to hold the government to account.

Evaluate the view that select committees are the most effective way for the House of Commons to hold the Executive to account.

Select committee:

can effectively scrutinize legislation and hold the government to account

since Wright reforms, they are chosen in secret and have significantly reduced whip enforcement, increasing the independence with which they can hoold the government to account

can call upon experts e.g. media select committee called upon Rupert Murdoch

can cause significant change e.g. Business and trade + Justice select committee paramount in Post Office Scandal Investigation

BUT

limited enforcement power, only around 40% amendments adopted

also, align with composition in the commons — government majority, exaggerated by FPTP and the winner’s bonus it tends to produce

Opposition:

can hold the executive to account

have 20 opposition days available to them, also receive funding in the form of Short money, leader of the opposition is a salaried position

also get greater media attention than figures like backbenchers e.g. given 6 questions in PMQs

BUT

limited, especially depending on where we are in the election cycle

can’t control the agenda so legislative powers hugely limited

Backbenchers:

best way of holding the government to account, especially via rebellions

threat of defeats can force changes to legislation e.g. 2012 - 91 tories rebelled over Lords reform, dropped after second reading

can challenge government policy e.g. 2024 justice bill, 40 rebellions

also have the extremely powerful threat of no confidence votes, only happened in 1979 but can prompt resignations/demonstrate a weak executive

BUT

whip enforcement can reduce chances of doing this e.g. David Gauke — whip withdrawn, didn’t win seat again

more fundamentally, efficacy is contingent on the strength of the government e.g. 35% rebellions during coalition vs 28% New Labour

Blair able to survive an 139 person rebellion due to his strength from FPTP

Evaluate the effectiveness of the House of Lords.

Evaluate the view that when it comes to fulfilling their respective functions the House of Lords can be seen as more successful than the House of Commons

overall argument: Commons, Lords power is often only influential/contingent on commons

Evaluate the view that the House of Lords is in need of major reform.

• ability to scrutinise, extent of independence, descriptive representation and composition

Scrutiny:

most vital role in holding government ‘to account’ and scrutinising their work

able to give up far more time to debate e.g. 96 hours on agriculture bill 2020 vs 32 hours

many peers are experts such as transport and education, human rights etc

Increased expertise enables more effective scrutiny and lets them hold government to account

Several key bills have been amended e.g. Article 50, Sunday Trading and EVEL

cannot enforce their power but can have a significant influence

BUT

this power is undermined by their lack of democratic legitimacy

none of the 809 are elected, 92 hold hereditary seats, more of an issue because attempts to reform (1999, 2014 coalition) have been stopped/limited by the lords

also can ignore the conventions limiting their power e.g. 2015 labour dominated HoL rejecting government proposals about tax credit cuts

Independence:

another advantage is the independence of thought that the HoL has

No party whip influence, vote on bills independently and in a bi-partisan manner

Also around 180 crossbench MPs, not an entirely political body

Crossbenchers essential for scrutiny and debate

BUT

although this suggests a lack of politicisation, the appointments proccess hugely undermines the independence of the lords

Cameron appointed 16 political allies

Nigel Farage claimed brexit party supporters had been offered peerages to keep them on side

Also still often vote according to party lines e.g. Free School meals bill, voted completely according to party divisions

also hugely affected by winner’s bonus and FPTP because strength in Lords is proportional to strength in Commons

capacity to act independently and therefore carry out scrutiny is undermined

Representation:

Has become increasingly representative

House of Lords Appointment Commission as an independent body, effective and just appointments

Has 26 Lord Spirituals but also has other religious representatives

Might lack democratic legitimacy but can represent a wider non-political class

Important representatives such as Baroness Lawrence

However, does not go far enough at all

Average age of peers is 70, only 29% female and 6% ethnic minorities

unequal representation undermines the benefits the Lords could have

Although descriptive representation does not entirely cause political representations, there are strong correlations e.g. all of the hereditary peers are white, older than average age and Conservative

Worsens issue of them being an unelected body, do not even represent the UK in a descriptive sense

Evaluate the view that parliament is effective in carrying out its work of scrutinising the Government.

Lords:

non-elected, usually lacks ministerial responsibility so should be one of the most effective forms of scrutiny

more bipartisan cooperation, 180 crossbenchers, no government majority

have longer to scrutinise bills (spend about 3 times as long on 2020 agriculture bill)

have been able to amend bills e.g. free school meals, EVEL, Sunday trading, article 50 plans

BUT

because they are unelected their influence is limited and can’t force amendments, can only be delayed for up to a year

this has been made evident with the Rwanda Bill 2023-24

also, although there is no government majority, composition is usually proportional to the size of a government’s majorities in the Commons → inflated by winner’s bonus

votes are often political e.g. free school meals - all votes followed party lines

power of scrutiny and efficacy is limited

Roles in Parliament (committees, questions):

established bodies in parliament also help increase scrutiny, such as the use of urgent questions and select committees

urgent questions have increased in recent years e.g. average number per sitting day was 0.1 in 1997 compared to 0.88 in 2017 (although partially because it was a minority gov)

John Bercow encouraging/allowing for more urgent questions

more significant, work of select committees

several select committees, now chosen by secret ballot rather than whips to grant greater autonomy

often have specialist MPs like Sarah Wolleston on the Health select committee

do have some influence e.g. in 2011, government adopted 40% of select committee suggestions

BUT

still limited as advisory bodies

also tend to all be dominated by a government majority so FPTP influence once more

other things like PMQs and urgent questions have limited influence/appeal to public as well

Voting in Parliament:

one of the most significant ways that legislation can be scrutinised, amended and defeated in parliament is through voting

backbench rebellions as particularly important

3 conservatives rebelled over Heathrow airport expansion, more over 2012 HoL reform

governments can be significantly defeated on legislation e.g. May faced 15 defeats, Johnson lost 100% of his early votes

BUT

likelihood and significance of backbench rebellions is hugely dependent on size of majority

35% of divisions under coalition versus 28% under Blair

Blair only faced 4 defeats, and more importantly could survive significant rebellions e.g. over Iraq war

efficacy of scrutiny is all ultimately contingent on size of government, damaging influence of FPTP and winner’s bonus

To what extent can parliament effectively carry out the legislative process

House of Lords:

Due to time given and independence, HoL is particularly significant as a revising chamber, improving the quality of legislation and scrutiny

2020 agricultural bill — 32 hours in Commons vs 96 hours in Lords

can dedicate more time

2021-22 session faced 0 defeats in Commons vs 133 in Lords

BUT

due to undemocratic nature, there enforcement power is hugely limited

Rwanda bill faced 5 separate defeats but was passed regardless, unable to delay hunting reform act for more than a year

its positive scrutiny power is undermined by its inability to enforce these amendments

PMBs:

a successful part of the legislative process within parliament is the ability for HoC and HoL to introduce PMB, providing a variety of legislation that doesn’t purely stem from the executive

important PMBs: abortion in 1967, 2018 Homelessness reduction act, 2014 HoL act

can cause significant change and allow for a diversity of legislation

BUT

unlikely to pass and stopped by government

only 8% pass, with only 1.1% of ten minute rule bills passing

are also subject to filibuster e.g. MP Sam Gimyah — minority are able to stop the successful passage of legislation

Public Bills Committee:

scrutinise legislation and play a vital role in the legislative process

2023 — Matt Western amended Higher education fee limit bill

purposefully dedicate time to examining legislation, can call upon experts

BUT

chosen by whips, weak independence, proportional to Commons

whips mean relevant MPs aren’t chosen e.g. Sarah Wollaston

proportional to Commons (winner’s bonus issue) but also not necessarily proportional in terms of diversity of opinion e.g. Higher Education Bill 2004 - 72 Labour MPs rebelled but only 1 was chosen for the select committee

scrutinising the government:

In some ways, the work of select committees and other forms of scrutiny has been effective at scrutinising the government, although to a largely limited degree. Recent select committees have seen signfiicant successes; for example, the justice select committee and the business and trade select committee were both vital for investigating and scrutinising the Post Office Scandal and the government’s role in it. Select committees allow for dedicated time to scrutinise legislation and government action, as well as gather expert opinions and are financially incentivised, all of which contributes their effectiveness at holding the government to account. Furthermore, recent years have seen an increasing impact of select committees, with polls suggesting 40% of select committee decisions have been acted on by the government. Therefore, select committees appear to play an effective role in scrutinising the work of government. However, while select committees are not partisan, they are usually proportional to the composition of the Commons, which means that governments with strong majorities (who arguably need the most scrutiny, due to their voting power) enjoy strength within select committees as well as on the floor. Similarly, committees are ultimately advisory bodies and while governments may choose to follow their advice, they are not bound to. While 40% of decisions might be followed, the majority are not suggesting that fundamentally, select committees are limited in the scrutiny they can offer due to their advisory nature and therefore dependency on the government.

The House of Lords also appear to be able to effectively scrutinise the government, arguably more so than select committees. Scrutiny by the Lords is particularly effective because of the amount of time afforded to them: generally, around 60% of time in the Lords is spent on scrutiny. Furthermore, the Lords spend significantly longer scrutinising bills — while the Commons spent 32 hours on the 2020 Agriculture Bill, the Lords spent 96 hours scrutinising and revising it. Due to the time they spend, the Lords can offer far more effective and detailed scrutiny. This is reinforced by the lack of a government majority or whips in the Lords — the HoL can act as a somewhat independent body which can check the power of government and scrutinise its work. However, the actual practical power of the Lords in scrutinising the work of the government is severely limited.