Embedded Files
The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.
The Expenses Scandal: Scandals
Is the quality of debate better in the Lords than in the Commons?
Scrutiny:
Scrutiny:
Select Committee reforms have significantly improved the quality of scrutiny in Parliament. Select Committees can choose the subject of their investigations and who to interview and question. Since 2002, the Prime Minister has appeared twice yearly before the Liaison Committee to answer questions on the Government’s current policies. As recommended by the Wright Committee, the Chairs of Select Committees are now elected by MPs across the Commons, and are paid an additional salary. Other committee members are also now elected by MPs from their party. These elections have helped to make Select Committees more independent-minded, as many outspoken MPs have been elected to chair them. In June 2014, the Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, a doctor who had previously been critical of the Government’s health policies, was elected as the new Chair of the Health Committee. University College London traced policy recommendations from seven select committees from 1997-2010 and found that the government acted upon 44% of their recommendations.
However… there are still several important factors limiting the effectiveness of Select Committees. Select Committee Chairs are still paid significantly less than even the most junior minister (a Parliamentary Under-Secretary), so, for salary and career minded MPs, it still might be much more tempting to follow the party whip and work to get a ministerial position. Therefore, it is possible that Select Committees are currently not attracting and keeping the most talented MPs. The legal powers of Select Committees could also be strengthened. Individuals summoned from outside of Parliament can still refuse to attend, and there are also limited options for punishing individuals who lie or mislead Select Committees. Finally, while Select Committee reports do appear to be having an impact, they are ultimately just recommendations, and 66% of the time they are not followed by the government. Parliament has limited power to challenge the use of the prerogative powers by the prime minister. The Royal Prerogatives are the powers that are legally possessed by the monarch, but by convention are used by the prime minister and other ministers. These powers include entering into armed conflict, granting Royal Charters, conducting diplomacy and making treaties, and appointing government ministers. These powers are exercised without the need for Parliamentary approval, making scrutiny and opposition extremely difficult. David Cameron’s decision to authorise drone strikes in Syria in September 2015 demonstrated that, despite the developing convention that Parliament should approve acts of war, the PM can choose to act against the express wishes of Parliament.
However… the Prime Minister has proven reluctant to declare military action without Parliament. Some prerogative powers have been challenged as Parliament has become more assertive. Cameron’s use of drones was an exception to the recently developing rule that Parliament should be given a vote prior to military action. In 2013, Cameron wanted to order military action in Syria, after it was claimed that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against its own citizens. However, instead of just giving the order, Parliament was given a vote, and the motion was defeated 285-272. In September 2014, Cameron also recalled Parliament from its summer recess to debate a motion on using air strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq. Prime Minister’s Questions is political theatre rather than proper scrutiny. In 1997, Prime Minister Tony Blair replaced the two 15-minute sessions of PMQ with a single 30-minute session on Wednesdays, giving fewer opportunities to question the PM. However, some would question whether this is really a loss. In 2015, the Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman, the longest serving MP in the Commons, described PMQ as “an exchange of pointless and useless declamations”. While proceedings are televised, most people are only likely to see highlights on the evening news, encouraging participants to focus on short, witty sound bites. Some questions are planted by the government in order to set the PM up for pre-prepared statements, rather than put on the spot and face real scrutiny. Other questions, which ask the PM if they would agree with a positive statement about their party, are barely questions. In 2014, Ed Miliband said he wanted “a more serious tone” for PMQ, but arguably little has changed. The Speaker still has to intervene at times to address the rowdy behaviour of MPs during PMQs. However… the opportunity to regularly question the Prime Minister is still significant, and quite unique. Most other democracies around the world lack an equivalent to Prime Minister’s Questions. The former American President George H.W. Bush once said “I count my blessings that I don't have to go into that pit that John Major stands in, nose to nose with the opposition.” In 2010, a petition was started in America to have President Obama face regular questions from Congress, much like PMQ. Therefore, it is arguable that, while it is not always entirely civilised, we should still value PMQs as an important opportunity for the legislative branch to directly challenge the executive. PMQ also appears to be quite popular with the public. The BBC's Daily Politics show often has its best ratings on a Wednesday, when it broadcasts PMQ live. Jeremy Corbyn has also attempted a new approach to PMQ, by crowdsourcing questions from the public on the Labour Party’s website.
More than half of this new parliament is made up of new MPs which makes the House of Commons a better reflection of the nation it serves. There are 263 female MPs, that's around 41% of the House of Commons. As well as the highest proportion of women, the House of Commons now has the highest proportion of ethnic minorities at 14%. There are also 64 MPs who openly identify as LGBTQ+. This is the highest number at the start of a parliament. Following the 2024 UK general election, the average age of Members of Parliament (MPs) is 48. Some sources have reported the average age of the new parliament slightly lower at 46, a five-year drop from the 2019 average of 51 .According to a July 2024 analysis by the Sutton Trust, 90% of UK Members of Parliament (MPs) elected in the 2024 General Election attended university for an undergraduate qualification.
This figure is higher than the broader UK working-age population, where about 19% have a university degree. The educational profile of the 2024 cohort includes: Postgraduate studies: 40% of MPs hold a postgraduate qualification. Elite universities: 55% of MPs attended a Russell Group university, with 20% attending either Oxford or Cambridge at the undergraduate level. No degree: 10% of MPs did not attend university for an undergraduate degree.
Representation:
Representation:
The House of Commons has become more descriptively representative. How well-positioned is the House of Commons to understand the needs and concerns of the public it represents?
As UK elections are party, rather than candidate, centred, MPs can get caught between whips & constituents Many UK voters are unlikely to know the names of individual candidates, instead casting their votes for the individual who just so happens to be the candidate of their preferred party. In contrast, members of the US Congress tend to feature heavily in the promotional material for their election campaigns, stressing their own personal views and ideas. As a result, many members of Congress feel that they have a personal mandate, and are more comfortable defying the party whips in order to take actions approved by their constituents. It is harder for UK MPs to feel that they have a personal mandate, and they may well feel compelled to follow the party whip even when constituents disagree, because they owe their position in the House of Commons to their party.
However… social media pressures MPs to be more responsive, & free votes lift the pressure from the whips. Social media platforms, and the ease of communication on the internet, are creating more direct relationships between MPs and their constituents. Constituents can contact and question their MP on Twitter, pressuring them to explain their votes. There are now numerous websites that make it easy to check not only how your MP voted on each issue, but the content of every comment they make in Parliament. Consequently, this places pressure on MPs to act more as delegates, voicing the views of their constituents, rather than trustees, exercising their own judgment, or loyal party drones who do as the whips tell them. Conservative MPs often explain their rebellions on issues like the EU by pointing to the strong views of their constituents, which they argue are more important than party loyalty. Free votes on controversial issues also give MPs more freedom to respond to their constituents. 136 Conservative MPs voted against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (2013), and 40 more MPs abstained, despite the support given to it by the Prime Minister. The free vote even allowed ministers, normally bound by collective responsibility, to oppose. Private-Member Bills and e-petitions can raise issues that may be overlooked. Significant laws, like the abolition of the death penalty (Murder Act 1965) and the legalisation of abortion (Abortion Act 1967), were the result of successful Private-Member Bills. MPs can use PMBs to raise issues that are important to constituents. In 2013, the backbench Conservative MP Jonathan Lord introduced the Citizenship (Armed Forces) Act (2014), which amended a legal issue that made it hard for some members of the army to become British citizens. This small reform was highly significant to the 200-300 people affected. Similarly, the 2015 Assisted Dying Bill was the first vote on the issue of assisted dying for almost 10 years. The creation of the Backbench Business Committee in 2010, and the Petitions Committee in 2015, has provided more opportunities for MPs to raise public concerns. The Backbench Business Committee can schedule business on 35 days - including issues raised by public e-petitions, which are scrutinised and assessed by the Petitions Committee.
However, few Private-Member Bills are successful, and the government still dominates the timetable. For the best odds of a successful Private-Member Bill, MPs can put their name forward at the beginning of each parliamentary year, and twenty names are drawn at random. In reverse order, these twenty MPs are given priority to timetable their bill for debate. But even these lucky MPs are unlikely to be successful. Only thirteen Fridays are allocated each year for PMBs, which amounts to a maximum of 65 hours, in which a large number of Bills aim to be considered. MPs lucky enough to have been selected in the ballot can choose their preferred day for the second reading of their Bill. The problem is that many MPs travel back to their constituencies on Fridays and, as a result, attendance can be poor and bills are easily filibustered. Even those who do make it to a vote are not guaranteed success. The Citizenship (Armed Forces) Act (2014) was one of just three ballot bills to pass that year, while the Assisted Dying Bill (2015) was defeated 330-118, despite polls showing that 82% of the public support such reforms. The Assisted Dying Bill was passed in 2025.
Overall
Overall
Parliamentary scrutiny of the executive has been enhanced in recent years by the increased assertiveness of backbench MPs and the House of Lords. In 2009, a select committee on reform of the House of Commons, chaired by Labour MP Tony Wright, recommended changes to parliamentary procedures that enhanced parliamentary scrutiny and its agenda-setting ability:
Uner the terms of the Fixed Term Paliament Act the prime minister was obliged to get parliamentary consent before calling an early election. Although in 2019 this proved to be ineffective since oppositions will never refuse an election. In 24 March 2022 The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (FTPA) and made the maximum term of a Parliament (rather than the period between general elections) five years.
Is parliament an effective check on the power of the executive?
Yes
Yes
■ The executive’s control over the parliamentary timetable has been weakened by the creation of the Backbench Business Committee (BBBC) and the greater use of urgent questions.
■ Backbench MPs provide greater checks on government policy than in the past, with increased incidents of rebellion a constraint on government action.
■ The reformed House of Lords, in which no party has a majority, is a more effective revising chamber — amendments made in the Lords often force the government to rethink legislation.
■Select committees have become more influential, with governments accepting around 40% of their recommendations. The election of select committee chairs and members has enhanced their independence.
No
No
■ The executive exercises significant control over the legislative timetable and MPs hoping to steer legislation through parliament face significant obstacles. The BBBC has only limited influence over the legislative timetable .Back Bench Business Committee
■ Government defeats are rare — most backbench MPs from the governing party obey the whip on a majority of votes.Party Discipline and Elective Dictatorship
■ The government is usually able to overturn hostile amendments made in the House of Lords, and can resort to the Parliament Act to bypass opposition in the Lords.
■ Select committees have little power. The government is not required to accept their recommendations and often ignores proposals that run counter to its preferred policy.
Case study October 2024 Two Private Members’ Bills
were presented in the House of Commons, each with different chances of passing. One PMB, introduced by Kim Leadbeater from Labour in Spen Valley, aims to legalise assisted dying. The other, from Josh MacAlister of Labour in Whitehaven and Workington, seeks to ban smartphones in schools. PMBs are proposed by MPs who are not part of the government or opposition, and they rarely progress through all the necessary legislative steps. Between the 2015 and 2024 General Elections, Conservative backbench MP Christopher Chope introduced 168 PMBs, but only one became law.
The chances of a PMB succeeding are often low due to limited time on the legislative calendar, lack of government backing, and resistance from fellow MPs. The most promising way for a PMB to advance is by winning a ‘backbench ballot’, which is a lottery that grants MPs the opportunity to introduce a bill.
Despite the challenges, there are reasons why a backbench MP might choose to introduce a PMB. It can raise awareness about an important issue and demonstrate to voters that their MP is active and fighting for them. It can also pressure the government to consider changing laws. Lastly, the chance of making a significant change to the law can be a prestigious accomplishment for an MP. For example, successful PMBs have led to the legalisation of abortion and the abolishment of capital punishment.
Of the two PMBs introduced, the Assisted Dying Bill has a better chance of passing. This is because Keir Starmer has mentioned that he will allow a ‘free vote’ on this issue in the House of Commons, meaning MPs can vote according to their beliefs rather than following party lines. In contrast, the smartphone bill is unlikely to be a ‘free vote’, and the government currently shows little support for it. This bill proposes increasing the age of "internet adulthood" from 13 to 16, making it illegal for anyone under 16 to have a social media account. Although the government acknowledges the negative effects of smartphones on young people, they have stated there are “no plans to legislate” on this matter. However, it is possible that Labour may take action on this issue at some point during the Parliament, and the ongoing discussion could influence progress.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the legislative process?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the legislative process?
Democratic process: Laws are made through an elected House of Commons, rather than by government orders. This means governments don't always win. E.g
The government introduced a welfare reform bill with proposals to save £5.5 billion by tightening the rules for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and reducing the Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefit.: A significant number of Labour MPs rebelled against these plans, arguing they would harm sick and disabled people.The government U-turned to avoid defeat and a potential defeat on the bill.
Thorough scrutiny: Proposed laws (bills) are debated and reviewed through multiple stages in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, allowing for amendments and consideration of public and expert opinions. The House of Lords contains former PMs, Professors, Generals and directors of business as well as Bishops, artists and sportsmen and women.
Flexibility: The system can react to emerging issues.In April 2025, the UK parliament passed emergency legislation to give the government powers to direct the use of British Steel's assets and take control if necessary.
Expert advice: Experts from pressure groups are consulted as the bill is drafted and during its passage. This contributes to specific areas where Parliament may lack the necessary knowledge. Public Bill Committees (House of Commons) Most government bills are scrutinised by a Public Bill Committee after their second reading. These committees can receive written and, in some cases, oral evidence from experts and interested groups outside Parliament.Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) POST is a parliamentary body that provides impartial analysis of science and technology issues. Experts can contribute to its research, which helps inform policy-making.Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (2008): This bill involved significant expert input, including from scientists and bioethicists, due to the complex and sensitive nature of reproductive and stem cell research advancements it addressed.
Parliament is dominated by the government. While this is termed 'elective dictatorship' it means Parliament can pass laws it deems necessary even if they are unpopular.
Weaknesses
Government control: With a majority government, the executive branch has significant control over the parliamentary timetable, which can limit opportunities for scrutiny and push legislation through quickly.
Slowness and inefficiency: The process can be lengthy, taking months or even years to pass a bill, especially when there is disagreement between the Houses."Ping Pong": If the two Houses cannot agree on the exact wording of a bill, it is sent back and forth between them (a process known as "ping pong"), which can cause significant delays as each chamber considers the other's amendments.
Parliament's role in the Brexit process was marked by unprecedented deadlock, division, and a power struggle with the government, culminating in a situation where MPs repeatedly rejected the proposed deals but also failed to agree on an alternative path forward.
Undemocratic elements: The House of Lords, which has the power to scrutinize and delay bills, is unelected and lacks democratic legitimacy. The First Past the Post voting system means that the Commons does not reflect the political preferences of the electorate.Representative democracy
Potential for rushed laws: In some cases, time constraints have led to bills being rushed through with inadequate consideration, such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
Complexity: Modern legislation can be overly complex and difficult for the public to understand.
Increased use of Critics argue that skeleton bills allow the Executive to concentrate power and bypass the scrutiny process, as the detailed laws are made through secondary legislation, which receives less oversight. "Ratchet effect": The increasing use of framework legislation can create a precedent, leading to a gradual shift in power from Parliament to the Executive. Parliament is criticized for not scrutinizing the bills effectively enough and for leaving too much for implementation by statutory instrument.
Parliament is often described as a "rubber stamp" because of the widely held perception that it routinely approves legislation and decisions already made by the government without significant opposition or careful scrutiny
"Lobby fodder" is a derogatory term for Members of Parliament (MPs) or peers who are seen as blindly following their party's line, especially through their voting habits. It suggests that they are primarily used to provide votes to support the party's agenda, rather than exercising independent thought or engaging in the full scope of legislative and scrutiny duties.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse