LATEST PARLIAMENT A LEVEL - PAPER 2

UNIT 2 PARLIAMENT
2.1 The structure and role of the House of Commons and House
of Lords.
• The selection of members of the House of Commons and
House of Lords, including the different types of Peers.
• The main functions of the House of Commons and House
of Lords and the extent to which these functions are
fulfilled.
2.2 The comparative powers of the House of Commons and
House of Lords.
• The exclusive powers of the House of Commons.
• The main powers of the House of Lords.
• Debates about the relative power of the two houses.

2.3 The legislative process.
• The different stages a bill must go through to become
law.
• The interaction between the Commons and the Lords
during the legislative process, including the Salisbury
Convention.
2.4 The ways in which Parliament interacts with the Executive.
• The role and significance of backbenchers in both Houses,
including the importance of parliamentary privilege.
• The work of select committees.
• The role and significance of the opposition.
• The purpose and nature of ministerial question time,
including Prime Minister’s Questions.

2.2 The HoL exerts more power over the government than the HoC.
2.2 Government can be more effectively constrained by the HoC than the HoL.
2.2 The main constraint on the power of the HoL is its comparative lack of power compared to the HoC.
2.2 Although the House of Lords has less power than the House of Commons, in practice it exerts more influence on government
decisions.
2.2 The informal powers of the HoC and the HoL are more effective than their formal powers.
 HOUSE OF COMMON OPERATES EFFECTIVELY [NO]
LEGISLATION Strong leg bc votes so can rebel against
49 labour MPs in 2005 rebel and vote against
proposal hold terrorist suspects 90 days w out
charge
defeat by 291 -322
Scrutiny / Select committee strong, force answer intense
questioning esp parliamentary privilege can freely
accountability ask Q w out fear persecution - philip green naming
lord hain businessman at heart sexual assault
alleglation depsite court injunction
→ 2003 david kelly made to testify before foreign
affair COMMITTEE required prov evidence to state
insufficient evidence sadam hus possessed WMD
When kelly hesitant to answer MP said ‘YOU ARE
UNDER OBLIGATION TO REPLY’
No bc MP may not have freedom, whips force keep party
line - whips brexit johnson 2019 removed 21 mps after
rebel against him in no bid brexit
Terror bill 2006 passed as terrorism act, extended time
terrorist suspects can be held w out charge 28 days +
increase surveillance
Private members bill get filibustered - chloe chote
upskirting bill
Domainate house of commons government can dominate
the House of Commons. The primary cause of this is the
First Past the Post voting system which is heavily
disproportional and provides the winning party with a
‘winners bonus’. For example, in 2019 it took just 38,000
votes to elect a Conservative MP but 853k to elect a
Green MP.
Excessive - negative outcome led to kelly suide 2 days
later intense pressure, so not effective at holding
individuals accountable
Also reduction conservative debate in public bill
committees due to partisan nature
legislation is poor in majority govt
- bc MPs expected follow along w what party dictates it
makes legislation be badly thought out and useless
especially in
197
Went ahead w iraq war and controversial policy
Investigatory power act 2016 which AMNESTY was very
much against saying in article
Even IDENTITY CARDS passed
legalises sweeping surveillance powers for UK
government
Rareto rebel - only may suffer this over 60 resignations
And 230 voted against
n offer effective legislative scrutiny, usually
when the issue is very controversial or is so
important that MPs are prepared to defy the
whip. For example, whilst in a confidence and
supply agreement with the DUP in January 2019,
Theresa May’s Brexit deal was defeated by a
record 230 votes with 118 Conservative MPs
rebelling
Weak at scrutiny and accountability ca simply be
avoided no obligation to attend
2019 liaison committee cancel appearance before liaison
committee at short notice, simply avoid scrutiny
committee’s chair, Sarah Wollaston, said the public
would have to draw their own conclusions as to why
Johnson did not appear.
NATIONAL DEBATE WEAKNESS - Example : 2016 -
debated the renewal of the UK’s Trident nuclear
weapons system whilst in 2019 - debated the terms of
the Brexit Withdrawal Bill.
Representation YES - socially representative, become more diverse
2022 liz truss most diverse cabinet ever
10 women and 7 people of colour
rise e/m MPs - one in 10 MPs are ethnic minorty
2017 make up = 7% lgbt, 33% women. 9.6% e/m and
xomprehensive schools 54%
2019 mark 1st time a majority party had more female
mps - 51% women labour
MPs represent the interests of their constituency in a
neutral and non partisan way. This can create
conflict with their party (e.g. the Tory Government is
pro fracking and HS2 but many Tory MPs represent
constituencies that are anti-fracking and anti-HS2).
2018 - 8 conservatives disobey three party line
whip + vote against expansion
Cross party groups - REP OF INTEREST ll-party
parliamentary groups formed to address varying
issues: the elderly, gambling, counter- extremism,
Islamophobia, gender equality, race and community.
MPs are also courted by campaign groups, such as
Extinction Rebellion
LEGITIMACY Parl bill requires consent of HoC since 1911 HoC has
exclusive rights to approve the budget. Debate
budget proposal 4 days the scuritinse govt finance
bill in committee of whole house and public bill
committee
but too simplistic to say that just bc MP looks like a
population or constituency they cannot equally represent
them
rishi sunak went private school
Ethnic minority population inc but representation is not
increasing
Synoptic link***
Minority parties who do not have concentrated support
but have widespread support do not do well - wasted
votes due to FPTP = unrepresentative HOC
GROUPS ARE INFORMAL + HAVE NO OFFICIAL STATUS
IN HOUSE
- convention develop, HoC consulted before
military intervention = 2003 iraq war - blair govt
- David Cameron 2013- military action believed
was justices against syria's bashar al assad after
alleged chemical attack on govt = defeated
motion by 285 to 272 vote
How well HoC fulfils legitimation is controversial. = uk not
codifed constitution so powers of HoC in regard to govt
unclear.
Conflict local v national interest
June 2016 52% of
voters chose to leave the European Union. However, it is
estimated that 418 constituencies out of 650 had a
majority in favour of remaining. This means when
considering the Brexit result and triggering Article 50
many MPs had to vote against the wishes of their
constituents. However, despite this, only 114 MPs voted
against the Article 50 bill
Study: 2018 may - join american led assault on Syrian
govt w out consultation HoC. Led by an angry
response, Corbyn called it a ‘flagrant disregard’ of
legistimsing rights of parl.
- May attempt to enter negotiations to exit eu
w out consulting HoC failed. 2017 gina miller
case outline PM cannot do this through royal
prerogative. ‘Such changes to be clearly
authorised by parliament’
Issues: indistinct relationship between HoC and royal
prerogative over legitimation + way in which secondary
legislation used change laws controversial.
 = changes done by statutory instrument = less scrutiny.
Critics argue use SI to make significant changes to law.
Angela Eagle Mp said overuse SI an attempt to ‘govern
from shadows’

HOUSE OF LORDS NEED REFORM

REPRESENTATION
LACK ENGAGEMENT
2018 -19 LORD BOOKMAN
NOT SPOKE ONCE but
claimed £50,000
There's 46 peers who didn't
vote single time
2016 to 2017 = there is 115
peers who didn't speak once
HOL undemocratic majority appointed
peers through political patronage
Peter cruddas - lord cruddas
MISTRUST OVER APP PROCESS
This lack of legitimacy intensified over
the scandal - mistrust of appointments
process - views member as illegitimate
as house as a regard system for PMs
allies
Jo johnson [boris own brother]
Cameron cronies 2016 - lizz sugg and Ed
llewellyn - attempt use resignation
honours list favour political allies
Cash for honours blair
Cash for honours - chai patel after donating £100.000
—------
2006, Patel withdrew his name from the list of
nominees for a peerage. He said that at no time did
he have any expectation of a reward nor had he been
offered anything in return
MAKE UP 70% MEN
Lack of engagement
Bc appointed for life, whips have no power - can toe
party line
Cruddas → donated £500,000 to party after taking
seat, is ‘unlawful’, say campaigners
od Law Project’s lawyers had advised there was
“apparent bias” in Johnson’s decision to continue with
his appointment regardless.
Spokesperson = ord Cruddas has a broad range of
experiences and insights across the charitable,
business and political sectors which allow him to make
a hugely valuable contribution to the work of the
Lords.”]cmc markets even advocate ory donor Lord
Cruddas vows to stop funding party if it fails to change
rules to prevent another leader being toppled like
Boris Johnson
Increasingly neutral body 197 crossbenchers
Lords - specialists - have greater knowledge on
certain things - elected representatives depth
LORD WINSTON = in 2005. He is one of the world’s
foremost authorities on IVF, embryology and fertility.
He has a wide background in medicine and is able
to contribute an enormous amount of scientific
issues within the House of Lord
also Lord West was a former First Sea Lord and
Intelligence Minister who has voted 725 times in the
House Lords to help improve bills relating to
military and diplomatic matters.
Johnson gov defeated 3 times in commons but 114
times in lords since he won in 2019 ge
National debates - although not democratically
elected, debate helps raise profile of issue.
Study: 2018 after killing of many palestinians in
gaza strip by isralei military forces. Lord Steel
propose debate ‘ this house take note of situation
in palestinian territories.

If they are not scrutinising their roles and

functions aren't being fulfilled lack of
communication with the commons
Gov can abuse selection process
- Won't appoint based on principles of
expertise and good skills but to give
out ‘honours’
 INFLUENCE OF Weakened by convention - limited in terms of
powers and what they can and cannot do -
LEGISLATION salisbury convention
Parl act 1911 1949 =--means house of lords
often gives into the house of commons when
there is conflict
e.g 2005 blair’s hunting act passed after no
agreement was reached
However can encourage and influence parliament to
rectify laws - defeat majority 82 on a clause in fire safety
bill - which stopped landlords from passing on the cost
of making flats fire safE = FOLLOWING MEDIA ACTION
OF RENFELL
More time - unlike HOC - the lords go through bills line
by line and have more time - the bills have more time to
be scrutinised and looked through carefully to make
amendments and make sure it is equal and fair - has no
negative impacts on public
- agriculture 2020 act - spent 32 hours in commons but
96 hours in lords
Statutory instruments - can scrutinise secondary
legislation and if either house rejects and SI it
cannot become a law - SI cannot be amended -
lords - delaying tory attempt in 2015 - to cut tax
credits = since 1950 - only 16 SI rejected by HOL
Tax credit cut in 2015 - tried to pass a primary
legislation as secondary HOL- makes dure
dangerous legislation that can be detrimental to
people isn't passed - delayed tory’s attempt
Tax credits vote: PM accuses Lords of breaking
constitutional convention
Rapid review’ sought after peers vote to delay tax
credit cuts until compensation scheme for
low-paid workers is worked out

HOL good can engage in parliamentary ping pong

Johnson 2019 defeated 3 times in commons but 114
times in house lords since 2019 ge

2008 counter terroism bill - hold terror suspects 42

days w no change. Defeated in lord by 191. Only
passed HoC by 9. Unpopularity caused Brown to
drop bill.

HOC EXERT MORE POWER THAN HOL, MORE INFLUENCE

LEGISLATING
Legislating - process parliamentary bills
become law. Go 2 readings in HoC before
reaching the public committee stage. =
examine details and amendments suggested.
Bill then reaches the report stage and is voted
on. After 3rd reading = sent to HoL follows a
similar process. One bill passed both houses.
HOL good can engage in parliamentary ping
pong
Johnson 2019 defeated 3 times in commons but
114 times in house lords since 2019 ge
2008 counter terroism bill - hold terror suspects
42 days w no change. Defeated in lord by 191.
Only passed HoC by 9. Unpopularity caused
Brown to drop bill.
Hol unfortunately have mechanism which constrain
thei role of legislating
1945 salisbury convection - HOl cant vote down
legislation in manifesto
1911 parl act - hol cant legislate or scrutinise money
bills
Power get rid of mp
HOC defeats made theresa may resign and
forced her to concede
2019 - largest parliamentary defeat of may - 230
votes - only few months later she resigned
Power recall act fiona asyama peterborough
Attain royal assent and become parliamentary Result parliament act 1911 and 1945 - govt can pass
statute or law legislation w pout approval from HoL.
sexual offeneces amendmant act 2000 - redcue legal
age for gay sex 18 to 16. - gave bill royal assent,
bypassing the lords.

means that hoc is better equipped in scrutinise gov -

no restrictions which inhibit their roles
HOC SUCCESS
mP rebel over legislation + even defiy whips. Mp
HOUSE OF COMMONS BAD more open minded and assertive. 2005, 49 MPs
1. Majority = really loyalty MP to vote for bill =
unconvinced by Blairs proposal that terrorist
makes debates and votes just formality since
subjects held custody 90 days w out charge. –.
the 2019 General Election there are 321 MPs who
have never once voted against their own party. Govt defeated 291 to 322
2. Composition public bill committee criticised.
Give govt majority as proportionate to party Example of notable defeats in HoC: reform of
strength in HoC sunday trading laws 2016 = plan cameroon allow
3. Whips influence selection of public bill large shop extended opening hours in england
committees - partisan nature undermines and wales defeated by 286 to 317. 27 tory MP rebel
ability to make practical improvements to a
bill. MPs expected to follow the dictates of
whips.
Example: crime and disorder act 1998 -
responsible for introducing anti-social
behaviour orders (ASBO) - however conduct
‘cause alarm, harassment or distress’ aim to
punish people for excessive singing or
rudeness to neighbours.

SCRUTINY
National debates - although not
democratically elected, debate helps raise
profile of issue.
Study: 2018 after killing of many palestinians
in gaza strip by isralei military forces. Lord
Steel propose debate ‘ this house take note of
situation in palestinian territories.
Appoint for life so dont need follow party line -
freely scrutinise and made amendments
2020 AGRICULTURAL ACT - 96 HRS IN HOL V 32
IN HOC - almost 3x as long
more time amendments
Expertise - lord west, prevfirst sea navy
specialise military matters
Despite expertise lack any authority or power =
unelected
Overlooked
Despite lord winston = lord winston - medicine,
leading IVF scientific issues in HoC
Yet lack any influence despite his expertise when he
WARNED parl against concerning technology fro
looser regulation precision bred animal + plants =
ignored
can argue that appointments made through
political patronage- majority
Of life peers appointed on recommendations -
e.g cash for honours scandal 2006 - gov abuse
selection process
use of PMQS - Keir starmer brought light to
issues of strikes that NHS going through - boris
johnson also scrutinised about December
lockdown parties etc

BUT 15 in favour of govt and dismiss lord winston scefinitfc **synoptic link - this depleted the valence and

National debates - although not
democratically elected, debate helps raise
profile of issue.
Study: 2018 after killing of many palestinians
in gaza strip by isralei military forces. Lord
Steel propose debate ‘ this house take note of
situation in palestinian territories.
view image of the cons party as issues they are being
scrutinised for the failure of handling events
which ruins reputation of the tory party which is
Viewed as respected body bc of separation However does not credit HoL massively despite evident as the Labour Party now have gone
from govt minor reforms - still seen as an elitist club as ahead of them in opinion polls
2023 conservatives continue the history of dominating
185 crossbenchers 2023
Non affiliated 39 261 - tory
174 - labour

2.3 The legislative process entrenches executive power.

2.3 The HoL has too much power during the legislative process.
2.3 The HoL plays a meaningful role during the legislative process.

2.4 The opposition act as an effective check on executive power. HFDYA

2.4 Parliament tends to dominate the executive, not the other way round. HFDYA
2.4 Parliament works effectively. HFDYA
2.4 Backbench MPs have significant power. HFDYA
2.4 The role of a backbench MP is to hold the government to account. HFDYA
2.4 Select committees effectively hold the government to account. HFDYA
2.4 Questions to ministers are ineffective in fulfilling their purpose. HFDYA
2.4 Government is improved by the existence of the opposition. HFDYA
2.4 MPs are significant in Parliament. HFDYA [CHECK THEMES FOR THIS]

OPPOSITION - not useful

HOLDING GOVT
ACCOUNT Marcus rashford FSM, labour party backing opposition
ensured political pressure and change achieved as uk parl
as whole voted down motion
PMQ corbyn to may brexit deal ‘twice rejected and now
dead’ → use to embarass PM by highlight policy failure and
own personal failures
Opposition influence only on conditions of public
support, media = rely external factors soft power - has
no authority to sanction govt alone
Starmer PMQ only 30 mins not enough and can be
avoided as seen johnson ignores, deploy to speak about
COP26 instead resignation of allegra stratton, health
secretary etc subjects putin, increase employment etc,
No power to even hold govt account when opposition
often scapegoated for economy troubles etc
2015 miliband and ed ball chancellor exchequer could
not escape line of attack they were responsible
Also often just lost and election and disunited not in
strong position to hold govt account
→ as strength of opposition relies on leader = corbyn ad
disunited party, mainstream media hostile to policy
 says we had already had conversation yesterday agenda
Starmer to johnson ‘why does he assume his actions have
no consequences’

POLICY - Parliamentary time of 17 days, leader opp use as pleases
LEGISLATION => in 2019 oppose govt policy of restrictions on protesting
in peace, crime and sentencing bill
And even support stopping rwanda plane and nationality
and borders bill
→ more detail add EXAMPLE
Useful provide alternative policy - act as govt in waiting ‘ ‘ An
example of this is Blair’s Shadow Cabinet between 1994 and 1997
ECONOMY
Conservatives - Promised no rises in Income Tax, National
Insurance or VAT.
Labour – Promised a new 50% Income Tax rate on income
over £125,000.
BREXIT
Conservatives - Promised to ‘Get Brexit Done’ based on Boris
Johnson’s deal with the EU. Labour - Promised to hold
another referendum on Brexit after renegotiating a deal
Continued rwanda plan, 2022 high court said it was
lawful sunak stop small boats hostility toward
immigrants, asylum seekers continue
the opposition debates often attended just by party in
opposition w govt abstaining from vote = LAST time govt
lost a contested opposition day vote was on 2009 when
lib dems contested browns gurkha soldiers, veterans
residency rights and before was 1978 so very rare tool
the opposition lacks the infrastructure of government
that is available to the party in power. Govt has an army
of Civil Servants and Political Advisors (such as SPADS
‘Special Advisors’ to support them). The Opposition
does not have access to the Civil Service and cannot
always afford as many advisors as the Government
Opposition hesitant on prov clear alternative bc
worried govt will steal ideas = brown taking cameron's
idea → plan to reform inheritance tax as cameron even
said ‘diff between our policy and their policy is we
thought of it and they stole it’
Moreover - often bipartisanship where they agree
2003 iraq war resolution 412 to 149
Covid pandemic lab vote in line w tory on restrictions

BACKBENCH - yes effective

REPRESENTATION Fail to prioritise constiutency interest, favour
national interest
Despite overwhelming 418 out 650 wanting to
remain in EU only 115 MP voted against article 50
Bc of whips who weaken representation forced to
vote along party lines
Despite this mp still went again shows value of
representing and also
In 2019 - 20 tory mp had whips withdrawn [expel
from party] after voting in favour opposition
amendment that makes no deal brexit removed as
a possibility
HS2 railway 8 tory mp vote against heathrow expansion
due to noise pollution and complaints of constituents as
they defy three line whip
This mp constituency link is kept strong due to FPTP
which demands in in order get votes must care for
consistency and represent them

2011 - cameron order 3 line whip for brexit
referendum
May 230 vote no confidence brexit plan
Backbench revolts in crease 37% since 2010-2015
​Current Backbench MPs who have rebelled a
number of times since the 2019 GE: David Davis –
Davis rebelled 66/531 times. This is 12.4%.
in 2011 the cameron motion of referendum EU
despite 3 line whip was defined as 91 tory mp
voted against govt
Loyal MPs -: Jerome Mayhew (Conservative) – Has
never rebelled since 2019.

POLICY INFLUENCE
—------------------------
EXTRA - success of MPs introduce bill
Ordinary Presentation – allows MPs to
introduce a bill to Parliament in writing.
However, they do not have the chance to
speak in favour of it and there is no
guarantee of any debate on the issue. As
such, these types of bill rarely become law
MPs managed to wrestle control of the
parliamentary agenda in order to legislate to
stop a no deal Brexit from being possible in
2019 led by Labour’s Hillary Benn. He
managed to persuade Parliament to pass the
European Union (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act
(2019).It was this bill that forced the Prime
Minister to seek an extension to the Article 50
period. This bill was introduced by Ordinary
Presentation.
HOLD GOVT ACCOUNT
10 minute rule no enough time, filibustering
Low success rate between 2015 to 2021 out of
363 private member bills introduced under 10 min
rule motion ONLY 4.1% received royal assent
very low number of Private Members Bills
that become Acts of Parliament. For
example, since 2015 only 16.2% of Acts
started as Private Members Bills
RARE TO BE SUCCESSFUL BLAIR WAS ONLY
DEFEATED, lost hoc votes only 4 TIMES IN PARl
OVER COURSE OF 10 WHOLE YRS - ATTRIBUTED
TO OVERWHELMING MAJORITY 197
FAILURE VOTE NO CONFIDENCE
Since 1945 been only 33 vote of no confidence and
only 1 succeed which was c callaghan in 1979
brought by thatcher opposition leader, thus forced
call general election which was won by thatcher
Since the 2019 General Election there
are 321 MPs who have never once
voted against their own party.
AIM advertise issue rather than serious attempt
bass bill
2019 Theresa May, by then a backbench MP,
introduced a bill to increase the maximum
sentence for Death by Dangerous Driving. In her
speech, she referenced three of her Maidenhead
constituents. This speech was reported
favourably in her local paper, the Maidenhead
Advertiser. Her campaign led to the Government
including May’s proposals in the Police, Crime,
Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021. This will increase
the penalties for dangerous driving, including by
While failed be defeated, still held account =
resignation of robin cook
And chilcot enquiry w 139 vote against REVOlt
→ iraq war resolution Amendment opposing the
government's stance on Iraq 412 - 149.
Success of backbench committee
KEY DEBATES THROUGH BACKBENCH BUSINESS
COMMITTEE
Several debates granted through this route have directly
affected government policy, including Mark Pritchard’s
motion to ban the use of wild animals in circuses, and
the memorable debate on the release of the
Hillsborough papers, secured by Steve Rotherham
2011
– 2015 led to the introduction of the Harvey Law, which
obliges the Highways Agency to notify owners of pets
who are killed on roads.
- MPs Manage stop syrian civil war motion in 2013
cameron govt, defeated by 30 tory rebels which in turn
stopped US going to war led serious affecting GLOBAL
GEOPOLITICS IN MIDDLE EAST
-.-backbench debate on the two-child limit for
universal credit – a key government policy.
Parliamentary privilege
Lord hain ABLE CALL PHILIP GREEN THE BUSINESS
MAN AT HEART F SEXULA ASSULT ALLEGATIONS w
out being sued for libel - had immunity as eh was able
call philip green that despite court injunction banning
disclosures of his name
→ Parliamentary Privilege helps to underpin the
doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Without
Parliamentary Privilege, MPs would not be able to fully
represent their constituents’ interests and MPs would
not be able to scrutinise the Government without fear
of falling foul of legislation, such as the
Official Secrets Act. As such, it is an essential element of
a modern parliamentary democracy.
 SELECT COMMITTEES yes are good
Accountability - powers
Check if dismal is accurate
Membership, policy
PMQ are NOT good at fulfilling purpose
No power to force unlike US committee w subpoena
Mike Ashley, the owner of Sports Direct and
Newcastle Football Club. He continually refused to
appear in front of the Business, Industry and Skills
Committee for almost two years before finally
relenting. When he finally did appear in front of the
Committee in 2018 he was extremely robust with the
Committee
Whips control individual appointments to the
committees, meaning loyal MPs can be placed on them
Downing Street put up Tory MP Bernard Jenkin - a key
Vote Leave figure - as the only candidate for the
chairmanship of the powerful Liaison Committee.
Opposition MPs and Tory rebels failed in a bid to block
Sir Bernard's appointment, which was branded
"shameful" and "autocratic".
2016 Business, Innovation and Skills
investigation into the alleged bad working
practises at Sports Direct - the company was
forced to pay compensation to its workers for
paying below the minimum wage. Mike Ashley
(CEO) was also interviewed by the Committee
Chairs of select committee elected by parl as
whole → wright reform 2009 ​chairs of Select
Committees should be elected by Secret Ballot
of the Whole House.reduce power of whips
In 2013 Dr Sarah Wollaston was kept off the
Committee on the Health and Social Care Bill by
whips, meanwhile fellow MPs chose to elect her
Chair of the Health Select Committee
I → DCMS Select Committee were critical of the
STLL can make enquiries, writing reports, carrying out question
and answer sessions (through which they can call witnesses,
including government ministers), and ask to see government
papers
Accountability: 2018 - the Home Affairs Committee interviews
Amber Rudd regarding the Windrush scandal. Rudd is forced to
resign as Home Secretary after it is found that she gave inaccurate
evidence to the committee over targets to remove illegal
immigrants. → Amber Rudd was forced to resign in 2018 after a
consolidated line of questioning by Yvette Cooper in the Home
Affairs Select Committee revealed that Rudd had been unaware of
removal targets within her own department for migrants.
influence on govt policy: 2014, the Home Office took the Passport
Office back under ministerial control, following a critical report by
the Home Affairs Select committee
BIPARTISAN MORE LEGITIMACY
ACT AS PRE-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY HELP DEVELOP BILLS
EG; Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee have
published a detailed report on the Government’s Draft Online Safety
Bill. In this, for example, they recommended the creation of a specific
offence of cyberflashing within the bill. Following this, the
Government responded by confirming they would include this
provision in the bill
IN SIMPLER TERMS
Government’s Online Safety Bill saying it did not go far
enough to tackle harmful content online – despite a
Conservative majority on the Committee.
accountability Force answer questions
opposition leader can ask supplementary questions,
allowing them more opportunity to scrutinise the PM
EG Jeremy Corbyn asked Theresa May about whether
she was to blame for the destruction of the 'Windrush'
generation's landing cards during one PMQs session,
—------------------------------
in which May refused to answer that question and
decided to just use her answers to blame the last
Labour Government.
.orchestrated , backbench questions are orchestrated by the
party whips. On the PM’s side, they are engineered to give the
PM questions that they can answer easily or questions that
reinforce a key message. For example, during the five years of
Coalition Government backbench questions often referred to
the government’s ‘long-term economic plan’. Indeed, between
the 2010 and 2015 election the term was used 1349 in the House
of Commons!
a key criticism of PMQs is that it is ‘Punch and Judy’ Politics where
MPs try to score political points on each other rather than focusing
on scrutinising or explaining the government.
Starmer v Johnson after the Grey Report was published:
PMQ only 30 mins not enough and can be avoided as seen
johnson ignores, deploy to speak about COP26 instead resignation
of allegra stratton, health secretary etc subjects putin, increase
employment etc We had convo yesterday

Advertisement, Any Backbench can potentially ask the PM a question.
media They can apply via a ballot to ensure they are able to
ask a question or can try to ‘catch the speaker’s eye’ by
bobbing up and down. Asking a question of the PM is a
big deal for backbenchers as it sends a strong signal
to their constituents that they are standing up for
Check if urgent their interests in parliament.
questions] are
part of PMQ or 2023 MARCH
if they r EG .Holly Mumby-Croft mp for north lincolnshire
seperate steel industry, concerned about Job losses at
British Steel in scunthorpe so will PMvtoday
reassure my constituents in North Lincolnshire that
we will never see the end of UK steel making under
his watch
Not taken seriously viewers watch for entertainment more
characterised by silliness
Stats on televised debates etc
RIDICULOUS MOCKERY not taken seriously THEATRICAL
Stalin to Mr Bean’: In 2007 the Lib Dem Leader Vince Cable
produced a characterisation of Gordon Brown that had the
House of Commons roaring with laughter
Failure take seriously, truly justify and ans questions interjection
from the Conservatives who were jeering and yelling at Sir Keir. =
Sir Lindsay SPEAKER was forced to intervene and calm things
down and said: “This is silly because I can’t hear the question. →
You won’t get away for Christmas!’ Hoyle slaps down rowdy
backbenchers during tense PMQ
RATHER URGENT QUESTIONS FUFILS ROLE BETTER
Any Opposition or Backbench MP can request that the Speaker
grant an Urgent Question.
Urgent Questions are a mechanism to try to ensure that Ministers
make important public statements to the House of Commons first
and not directly to the media. For example, in May 2020 the
Chancellor Rishi Sunak planned to make his announcement
extending the COVID-19 furlough scheme to the media. However,
after the granting of an Urgent Question to Annelise Dodds
(Shadow Chancellor) he was instead forced to do it in the House
of Commons

Evaluate the view that Parliament is effective at scrutinising the Executive in the UK (30 Marks)
LEGISLATION
Britain is a parliamentary democracy which means there is a fusion of powers between the Executive and Legislature. The Executive, led by the Prime Minister, is formed from the House of Commons and yet one of the
key roles of Parliament is to scrutinise the actions of the Government. To answer this question the following issues need to be considered: legislative scrutiny, the role of backbenchers and question time. Ultimately, it is
clear that parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive is woefully ineffective because of the elective dictatorship that is usually formed after a Government has won a clear majority. Legislating is one of the most
important roles of Parliament and is therefore an important area of executive scrutiny. This is as under Standing Order 14 the legislative agenda is largely controlled by the Executive. Most bills are Government
Bills, with 76.9% of bills from 2015-2021 being tabled by the Executive. This dominance over the Commons agenda is reinforced by the notion of the elective dictatorship – that because of the FPTP voting system
most governments have a clear majority and can govern as they please without having to worry about undergoing effective scrutiny. For example, Tony Blair had a majority of 179 and did not lose a single Commons
vote in his first 8 years as PM, whilst the average government majority since 1945 has been 57.4 seats. This means that the Executive is normally capable of pushing through its agenda because it consistently has the
parliamentary arithmetic on its side.
Further to this, MPs are very heavily whipped. This means they rarely rebel against their party leaders. This is because MPs are beholden to their party for their seat and they rely on the patronage of party leaders for
personal advancement. This might help explain why since the 2019 General Election there are 321 MPs who have never once voted against their own party. The combination of large government majorities and
heavy whipping of backbenchers means that often legislative scrutiny in the House of Commons is ineffective. However, there are times when the House of Commons can offer effective legislative scrutiny, usually
when the issue is very controversial or is so important that MPs are prepared to defy the whip. For example, whilst in a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP in January 2019, Theresa May’s Brexit deal
was defeated by a record 230 votes with 118 Conservative MPs rebelling. This shows that, depending on the issue and the size of the government majority, the power of the whips can weaken.

HOUSE OF LORDS
In addition, the second Chamber of the House of Lords can be said to offer more effective scrutiny because of the time, expertise and independence it puts towards legislation. Firstly, the House of Lords are said to
go through a bill ‘line by line’ spending much more time scrutinising legislation, particularly by adding ‘reasoned amendments’. For example, the Agriculture Act (2020) was considered for 32 hours by the House
of Commons but for 96 hours by the House of Lords. In addition, in the Lords this scrutiny is carried by people who have been appointed to the House precisely due to their expertise. For example, Lord West was a
former First Sea Lord and Intelligence Minister who has voted 725 times in the House Lords to help improve bills relating to military and diplomatic matters.
Finally, unlike the House of Commons, the Lords are not heavily whipped. There is more independence and a collegiate atmosphere in the House of Lords which is helped by the fact that there are 184 crossbench
peers and 26 Bishops who do not belong to a political party. HOL However, despite these positive factors, the House of Lords is structurally limited by both statute and convention. The Parliament Acts mean the
House of Lords cannot block legislation for the Commons while conventions like the Salisbury Convention and Financial Privilege limit the power of the House of Lords to effectively scrutinise Government
legislation. Overall, the scrutiny of Government legislation is ineffective.

BACKBENCHERS
The House of Commons is normally unable to provide effective scrutiny due to government majorities whilst the effectiveness of the House of Lords is undermined by the structural limits placed upon it. There are a
number of limits that backbenchers face in attempting to scrutinise the Government in the House of Commons. One is that, unlike most members of the House of Lords, they have to be generalists and not specialists.
Backbenchers have to represent the diverse range of opinions and concerns across their constituency. For example, as of 18/02/22 Conservative Backbencher Huw Merriman’s last ten questions were all about
different subjects ranging from tourism to knife crime. In addition, backbenchers have limited power to initiate change themselves and instead rely on working within a party to bring any change about. This can
be seen in the very low number of Private Members Bills that become Acts of Parliament. For example, since 2015 only 16.2% of Acts started as Private Members Bills. This often means backbench MPs do not
introduce bills because they will pass but instead because they might push forward the issue in the media. 119 PMBs of which none have become law. Conversely, despite these limits, it is clear that some
backbenchers are influential and can influence policy. This is particularly the case when a backbencher is seen to be either particularly experienced or have particular expertise. For example, Theresa May
(Backbencher of the Year 2021) was able to persuade the government to incorporate her Ten Minute Rule motion on dangerous driving sentences into the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill. In addition, the
Wright Reforms of 2009 have increased the influence of backbenchers. Firstly, the Backbench Business Committee provides them with an opportunity to put forward ideas for debate that might provide scrutiny
of the government. For example, on the 21/04 a backbench debate was held on the two-child limit for universal credit – a key government policy. Secondly, backbenchers may serve on Select Committees
which since the Wright Reforms have seen committee chairs elected by the whole house and select committee members elected by their own party. This has substantially loosened the grip of the whips over
Select Committee and increased their independence. For example, the DCMS Select Committee were critical of the Government’s Online Safety Bill saying it did not go far enough to tackle harmful content
online – despite a Conservative majority on the Committee. Therefore, whilst backbenchers are still limited in their ability to provide security of the executive overall this ability is growing, and in addition, there are
certain MPs who are able to provide more effective scrutiny than others. One of the most important mechanisms of parliamentary scrutiny is Question Time. The most prominent example of question time is Prime
Ministers Questions which takes place at 12.00 on Wednesdays. PMQs sees the PM questioned by Government and Opposition MPs with the Leader of the Opposition given six questions. PMQs is however both the
most visible and the most theatrical form of Question Time. MPs spend significant time trying to score political points rather than scrutinise the Executive in detail – for example Diana Johnson’s recent question that
over ‘partygate’ saying that the PM ‘was trying to convince people he was a stupid rather than dishonest’. Whilst the questions are often political, so are the answers, with the Prime Minister being able to avoid
giving a detailed response. As such PMQs gives a bad indication of how effective Parliament is in its function of scrutiny. Importantly, however, it must be noted that PMQs is just one form of question time and the others
that take place at the start of the parliamentary day from Monday to Thursday are far more productive. MPs can ask a department any question and can also table questions in advance or in writing, therefore
encouraging a more detailed response. Further, since the speakership of John Bercow, the use of Urgent Questions and Emergency Debates has grown significantly. Under the previous speaker there were 0.02
UQs a day but under Bercow this rose to 0.88 per day with the Speaker ensuring the Government could be held to account immediately if required – a trend that has largely continued under Lindsay Hoyle. In
addition, Emergency Debates have been increasingly granted, for example the Emergency Debate granted to discuss the
Parliament:
“Evaluate the view that although the House of Lords has less power than the House of Commons, in practice it exerts more influence on government decisions”
- Disagree

Themes:
- Representation
- Scrutiny
- Legislation

Counter 1: Representation
- There are currently 183 crossbenchers composing approximately 24% of the sitting members in the HoL, and only exceeded in number by conservatives in the Lords
- Lords have been seen to represent the electorate's wills better than elected representatives as seen through the tax credit cuts in 2015.
- The Lords opposition to several aspects of Cameron's austerity measures which some peers argued was unnecessary and would bring poverty and misery to many of
the most vulnerable people in Britain.
- More representative of different groups of society meaning they are able to control governments power more effectively. This is because HoC tends to have politicians who are
white, male, mc and oxbridge educated and although HoC has a similar descriptive representation as HoL, they have a wider range of people from different
areas of society and have experienced different careers whereas those in Commons are solely focused on politics or the economy.
- Lords can be argued to carry out representative functions better with the representation of different groups in the UK e.g. bishops. Likewise the Lords has a better balance of the
party representation due to the fact that they are not elected.

Dismissal 1: Representation
- However HoL lacks a mandate to make decisions on behalf of the people - This is because they are unelected and are unable to be held accountable for their actions.
- Unelected - so lack a mandate - easy for governments to ignore recommendations on account of this.
- The amendment made by the HoL in regards to child refugees being able to reunite with their families in the UK as part of the Brexit Bill was rejected by the HoC in 2020.
- This shows how ultimately the HoC has more decision making power thus exerts more influence on government decisions

Main argument 1: Representation:

- MPs hold weekly surgeries and many feel strongly about their constituents views that they are willing to oppose the party line (even against government decisions):
Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith made good on an election promise to trigger a by-election and restand as an Independent if his party allowed the building of a third runway at
Heathrow; by the time of the vote in December 2016, the landscape had shifted and concerted Lib Dems effort in a strongly pro-remain constituency assured his defeat, and
withdrawal from political life.
- As the commons are elected they are directly accountable to the electorate and their constituency - the Lords are not accountable to the electorate so cannot be expected to fulfil
their representative function completely effectively.
- HoC are able to have a mandate to take part in decision making process as they are voted by the electorate and have a duty to their constituents to make decisions that will benefit
and they can be voted out by their constituents if they are unhappy with decisions.
- Reinforces idea that HoC exert more influence on government decision than HoL as they are given a mandate to take part in the decision making process and are therefore more
likely to be taken seriously by the government
Counter 2: Scrutiny
- More expertise/specialist knowledge - this means bills are potentially more carefully and effectively scrutinised.
- Lord Fowler maintains a strong interest in HIV/AIDS awareness and treatment and continues to campaign on these issues.
- HoL has become more effective at checking the government power than commons as they have high levels of expertise and can utilise this to effectively check government bills.
- Lords are appointed due to expertise as they are able to make decisions on particular fields.
- Lords like Lord Walton are able to effectively scutinise the government on health bills as they understand the system and what needs to be done to better the healthcare
system.

Dismissal 2: Scrutiny
- However the Lords are limited in scrutiny function
- Parliament Act 1911 and 1949: No power of veto over legislation, can only delay for 2 years this was then reduced to 1 year in 1949.
- This limits the time the Lords have to effectively scrutinise a Bill, thus they may not have enough time to effectively influence government decisions.

Main argument 2: Scrutiny

- Transport Select Committee held Transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin at the time to account for the controversy over the West Coast main line rail franchise in 2012
- The treasury select committee has the right to veto the chancellor of the exchequer's choice for the head of the Office for Budget responsibility. - Select Committees
can be a useful and unbiased form of scrutiny. These are improved by the 2010 wrights reforms which required the chair of the select committees to be elected.
- Moreover backbench business committees allow for backbench MPs to have thie voices heard and further scrutinise the government affecting their decisions.

“Evaluate the view that Parliament is effective at scrutinising the Executive in the UK.”
- Agree

Themes:
- House of Commons
- House of Lords
- You could even split it with the HOL and HOC - house of commons are effective at scrutinising the exec, you can talk about blair and his first commons defeat, dismissal talk about how
that was his first one and elective dictatorship etc, stronger arg you can do the stat of 321 MPs since 1945 never voting against their party and also talk about how govt have won
99.2% of divisions in the commons, out of 19,909 divivisions, so they have won all but 148. Link to how MPs are just lobby folder etc

Counter: House of Commons can hold the executive to account

- One could argue that the House of Commons, as the democratically elected chamber, is significant in holding the executive to account
- In 1979, A vote of No confidence was initiated by parliament against the govt of Jamses Callaghan due to his mismanagement of the economy which put him at odds with the
electorate. He was defeated by 311 votes to 310
- Shows how the powers of the executive secured through their mandate is not absolute, with parliamentary sovereignty being the final judge of the competency of govt which
potentially leads to their dismissal

Dismissal:
- Vote of confidence has only been initiated one time in modern parliamentary era
 - Could’ve been initiated on Thatcher in 1990 due to the poll tax but was succeeded by John Major instead due to an internal party leadership contest - Undermines the political
influence of the HOC if it has little control over the succession to governance which gives the executive increased powers to dominate the political process

Main argument:
- If a govt has a large majority, it can dominate the legislative process without much influence from the HOC
- During his ten years as Prime Minister Tony Blair suffered only 4 defeats in the HOC and did not lose a single vote in his first 8 years in Office. He operated with a majority of 179
seats in 1997 and 166 in 2001. Similarly, Thatcher lost only four divisions in 10 years.
- Amplified by the pluralistic nature of the FPTP leads to executive dominance over the political process
- Additionally, a dominant govt also gives it significant powers over the effectiveness of Scrutinising abilities of Select Committees
- Public Bill Committees composition is based on the parliamentary strength of govt
- Makes scrutiny of legislative policy less effective due to a likely partisanship at work - This idea of partisanship continues itself through the Whips office
- In 2003, 39 labour MPs voted against involvement in the Iraq War, but Blair still won the parliamentary vote
- Highlights how the executive is so strong that it can easily control backbench rebellions and thus retain its dominance over policy formulation, even if it is controversial
- Whilst HOC has traditionally scrutinised primary legislation by govt, it still lacks the legal mechanisms to inhibit the use of secondary legislation which allows acts of parliament to
be amended by senior ministers and civil servants instead of the executive
- Since 1950, only 19 statutory instruments have been rejected of which 11 were rejected in the HOC

Counter: House of Lords scrutinising executive legislation

- The Lords shows much more partisan independence than the Commons which theoretically allows it to scrutinise govt legislation more effectively
- This is seen in the number of govt defeats in the HOL compared to the HOL: From 2019 - 2021, govt suffered only 3 defeats in the HOC compared to 114 whilst this was 33 -
69 during Theresa May’s govt of 2017-2019
- This shows that HOC can express its condemnation of govt policy more freely, due to the idea of Whips controlling the ambitions of MPs being diminished

Dismissal: Executive dominating the House of Lords

- However, the fact that the HOL is unelected reduces its legitimacy. This lack of legitimacy thus reduces the significance of their rejection of govt proposals - During the
passage of the (Withdrawal) Bill, the House of Lords proposed
several amendments, including those related to parliamentary scrutiny, the status of EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the role of the devolved administrations.
However, the government rejected many of these amendments and made changes in the House of Commons to reflect its preferred approach. The bill eventually became
law as the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Main argument: Executive dominating the House of Lords - The HOL is constrained by Conventions and statutes which makes its scrutinising role less powerful
- The Parliament Act 1911 and 1949 ensures that the HOL does not interfere in proposals that were pledged in a govts manifesto as well as only delaying govt bills by up to 1 year
- The Salisbury’s Convention inhibits the HOL from interfering in the budgetary affairs of govt
- The expertise and advice of the HOL is not expressed to its fullest extent due to constraints and leaves the HOL to rely on powers of moral persuasion to persuade govt to amend
their proposals
- Persuasive powers instead of legitimate political power is more likely to being ignored, logically following that the HOL is not able to effectively scrutinise govt
Evaluate the view that Parliament is ill-equipped to hold the executive to account.”
- Agree

Themes:
- Legislation
- Parliamentary agenda

Counter: Legislation
- When a govt is incompetent, Parliament can utilise its democratic role as legislative scrutinisers to hold them to account
- In 1979, Vote of no confidence was initiated against the govt of James Callaghan due to the lack of faith that he could govern the UK
- Theresa May suffered the biggest defeat in modern parliamentary history (432 - 202) when she attempted to introduce her Incoherent Brexit withdrawal bill in 2019. When
reintroducing it, John Bercow referenced Erskine May’s works in stopping her from reintroducing unsuccessful legislation
- Shows how parliament can scrutinise incompetent legislation and ensure a broader consensus is reached before constitutionally significant legislation is passed - Can also rely on
authoritative works to strengthen their challenge

Dismissal: Legislation
- Vote of no confidence has been initiated only once in modern parliamentary history - Theresa May operated under a minority government which relied on a supply and demand
agreement with the DUP for support on budgetary affairs and a potential vote of no confidence. It was therefore easier to undermine her legislation

Main argument: Legislation

- The executive dominates parliament to the extent that sovereignty effectively lies with the govt of the day. The pluralism of our electoral system means that governments with
reasonable large majorities can effectively dominate parliament, in an ‘elective dictatorship
- Tony Blair and his New Labour govt was given a 179 seat majority (although gaining only 43% of the total vote share) to pass his constitutional reforms and national security
laws with ease. During his 10 years as prime minister, he only suffered 4 defeats in the HOC and did not lose a single vote in his first 8 years.
- Despite opposition from his own party, Blair’s won the parliamentary vote to join the US-led coalition on the invasion of Iraq
- Due to the fusion of govt within the legislature, its greater control over the amount of parliamentary seats allows it to increase its influence over the legislative process, which has
implications on Parliament's ability to scrutinise the executive.
Counter: Parliamentary agenda
- Parliament can challenge govt behaviour and actions through employment of mechanisms such as select committees during the legislative process - In 2018, Amber Rudd resigned
as Home secretary after admitting that she had inadvertently misled the Home affairs select committee by stating that she was unaware of deportation removal targets when
evidence indicated that she had seen documentation to that effect
- This shows how the agenda of agenda of parliament can be configured by the HOC to challenge the competence of govt

Dismissal: Govt controlling the parliamentary agenda

- The govt exerts a greater deal of control over parliamentary business - Since Public Bill Committees always have a government majority and are whipped, it is unlikely for
the Opposition to be able to significantly amend \legislation at committee stage
- The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill was a crucial piece of legislation that aimed to implement the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the European
 Union, as part of the Brexit process. During the committee stage of the bill, the government had a majority of MPs on the Public Bill Committee. With a government majority
and the application of party discipline, it became difficult for the opposition parties to make substantial amendments to the bill. The government had qthe ability to "whip"
its MPs, thereby ensuring that government-supported amendments were more likely to pass

Main argument: Govt controlling the parliamentary agenda - The purpose of the parliamentary agenda is to ensure that important matters are appropriately addressed, debated, and
resolved within the legislative framework. But due to the royal prerogative this is done through the lens of govt, fusing the sovereignty of parliament with their democratic legitimacy to
go unopposed - In 2019, Johnson prorogued parliament for 5 weeks, arguably to limit the scrutiny of his Brexit bill
- Although reprimanded by the SC, if the govt has the royal prerogative right to suspend the functions of parliament, it logically follows that they have the sovereignty over parliament
and not vice versa

Evaluate the view that Parliament is no longer sovereign in the UK

Parliament vs PM still has prerogative powers - Theresa May carried out

executive/supreme court
The UK Parliament remains the ultimate legal authority in the UK. It
can pass laws on any subject and isn’t subordinate to any other body
in law.
Judges can’t strike down laws using the Human Rights Act, just
declare them incompatible with it and advise Parliament to change
the offending law, which Parliament can refuse to do.
In recent decades, it has become a convention that parliament is
consulted before voting on major military actions.Parliament can
therefore be seen as having gained the prerogative power to wage
war from the executive.
airstrikes in 2017 without consulting Parliament.
Tony Blair lost just four votes across his ten years as Prime
Minister, whilst since the Second World War, over 99% of
divisions (votes) in the House of Commons have been won by
the government.
parliamentary sovereignty is really executive sovereignty as the
government can usually dominate parliament. Lord Hailsham called this
an ‘elective dictatorship’.
The executive controls most of the parliamentary agenda and is able to
use whipping and its large majority to ensure they very rarely lose votes.
The PM controls parliament with patronage powers - ability to hire and fire
ministers at any time.

This can be seen in 2013, when David Cameron backed down from
calling for airstrikes in Syria after Parliament voted against them

Since 2010, there have been a number of weak governments with

smaller/no majorities. This has increased the power of Parliament to
scrutinise and effectively challenge the executive.

Theresa May’s minority government was defeated thirty-three times,

including three Brexit- related defeats in one day on 15th January
2019.

Devolved bodies vs Parliament
Devolution isn’t a federal settlement with a formal, legal sharing of
sovereignty between different levels of government. Instead,
Parliament has granted power to the devolved bodies, which it could
legally take back.
Parliament retaining the legal power to abolish the devolved
bodies and reverse devolution would be politically highly
Devolved bodies have significant powers to make laws on a range of
unlikely as it would create a constitutional crisis and devolved
policy areas, including over certain areas of taxation, and therefore have a
bodies are a deeply ingrained part of British politics
significant amount of sovereignty.
For example, the Scottish Parliament controls key public services
including health and social policy, key welfare benefits (including disability
 Parliament retains the legal power to abolish the devolved bodies
and reverse devolution. Further, the Sewel Convention is just a
convention, which isn’t legally binding and doesn’t formally limit the
power of Parliament. It is only recognised in the Scotland Act 2016
and Wales Act 2017, rather than being binding.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the consent of the UK
Parliament is necessary to legislate for a second independence
referendum in Scotland, despite the SNP arguing otherwise.
In January 2023, Rishi Sunak used a Section 35 Order to block
Scotland’s proposed gender reform bill, which would’ve introduced
self-identification for those who wanted to change gender and
allowed 16 and 17 year olds to do so. This was the first time a UK
government has used a Section 35 Order.
The people vs Parliament
Whilst the people have popular/political sovereignty, this has always
been the case and Parliamentary Sovereignty refers to the legal
sovereignty that is traditionally held by Parliament.
Referendums in the UK are only advisory. Parliament remains
sovereign after a referendum and could decide not to implement a
referendum result or to call another referendum to try and get a
different result, as the People’s Vote movement tried in relation to
Brexit.
This was confirmed in the Article 50 Court Case, in which the
Supreme Court ruled that the UK Parliament had to have a vote
before Article 50 could be triggered to start the process of the UK’s
withdrawal from the European Union.
Parliament is no longer legally sovereign in relation to key
constitutional changes, however, as a convention has developed
that the people should be consulted and though referendums
are legally advisory in practice it would be highly unlikely that
Parliament would ignore a referendum result.
living allowance) and education. It now also has significant fiscal powers,
controlling income tax rates and bands and the right to 50% of all VAT
raised in Scotland.
As a consequence, it can be argued that Parliament is no longer sovereign
over these policy areas in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Further, the Sewel Convention stipulates that the UK Parliament cannot
legislate on policy areas that are devolved without permission from the
relevant devolved assembly.
This was recognised in the Scotland Act 2016 and Wales Act 2017.
In reality if not in law therefore, Parliament is no longer sovereign over
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in relation to the policy areas
controlled by the relevant bodies.
The people ultimately have popular/political sovereignty, with which they
grant Parliament and other bodies legal sovereignty through elections.
In a democracy, the legal sovereign body derives its authority from the
people. When the people elect a parliament they delegate their political
authority to their representatives.
If the people aren’t happy with Parliament, they will remove them through
elections, or if necessary a revolution.
In the past few decades, there have been a number of referendums on
key constitutional issues, including Scottish Independence, Brexit, the
electoral system and devolution. As a consequence, a convention has
developed that the people should be consulted in a referendum before a
significant constitutional change is introduced.
It can therefore be argued that the people now have legal sovereignty
over key constitutional changes, as it would be highly politically unlikely
that Parliament would defy the clearly expressed will of the people in a
referendum.
 Evaluate the view that Parliament holds the government to account effectively (30)
Select committees
Ministerial Question Time
The influential Treasury, foreign affairs and defence committees are
chaired by MPs of the governing party.
This limits their independence from the government and the
likelihood they will hold the government to account effectively.
Though available resources have increased, Select Committees can
only cover a limited range of topics in depth, therefore limiting their
ability to hold the government to account across all areas of policy
and governance.
Select Committees’ power to summon witnesses is considerable but
not unlimited.
In 2013, as Home Secretary, Theresa May blocked the Home Affairs
Select Committee from interviewing Andrew Parker, the head of MI5.
The government accepts about 40% of SC recommendations, but
these are usually minor changes. The actual influence of Select
Committees on policy can therefore be seen as limited.
Boris Johnson twice cancelled appointments to attend the Liaison
Committee and was therefore able to avoid scrutiny.
It can be argued that PMQs in particular provides little effective
scrutiny and is more focused on partisan political point scoring than
proper, detailed scrutiny of the government. Ministers and Prime
Ministers often give political answers, intended to deflect and get
soundbites for social media clips rather than to honestly answer
scrutiny.
Further, many government backbenchers ask questions drafted by
the whips, which are intended to flatter rather than scrutinise the
government.
They say something along the lines of ‘does the government agree
the government is doing a great job in this area’
Select Committees look in depth into issues. Questioning
is calm, measured and professional and political answers
aren't accepted. Scrutiny is therefore a lot more
professional and less partisan than PMQs. As a result it can
be argued that Select Committees hold the government to
account effectively.
Further, since the Wright Reforms 2010 , Select
Committees are moire independent of the government.
Select Committee Chairs are no longer chosen by the
whips, which has allowed prominent backbench MPs who
oppose the government on some issues to obtain key
roles in Select Committees.
Conservative backbencher and former Immigration
Minister Caroline Nokes, for example, is the chair of the
Women and Equalities Committee and has consistently
criticised the government, including in relation to its plans
to house asylum seekers in barracks.
this view is myopic as PMQs have been successful in
numerous instances in fulfilling their role of putting direct
pressure on the PM. it also provides an important
opportunity for public spotlight to be put directly on the
PM, therefore, it is important that the PM and the leader of
the opposition present themselves as effectively as
possible - leader of the opposition can ask up to 6
questions
PMQ December 2021, footage had emerged of Boris
Johnson joking about the Christmas party at downing
street - Keir Starmer (leader of the opposition) scrutinised
him heavily; shows how opposition successfully uncover
any inadequacies in the government. Furthermore, due to
the public nature of PMQS, it forces the PM to be
well-informed about policy and the wider news agenda
therefore, the stronger argument remains that the
Opposition is effective at fulfilling their responsibility of
The work of Select Committees is respected because it is evidence-based
and the fact they hold televised hearings increases their influence. As they air
issues of public interest, they are reported on in the media and therefore hold
the government to account publicly.
In March 2023, for example, the Privileges Select Committee scrutinised
former Prime Minister Boris Johnson over his involvement in the ‘Partygate’
scandal, which garnered a lot of public interest and media attention.
The government has to publicly respond to their findings/reports in 8 weeks
and they can sometimes have a direct influence on government policy,
ensuring that government departments perform effectively.
For example, in 2014 the Home Office took the Passport Office back under
ministerial control following a critical report by the Home Affairs Select
Committee.
The Liaison Committee directly questions and scrutinises the Prime Minister
twice a year, therefore directly holding the most powerful figure in
government to account.
Judgement; Overall, Select Committees are effective in holding the
government to account. Though they can only investigate a limited number of
topics, the fact that they can draw on significant expertise, their scrutiny is
calm and professional results and their scrutiny can gain significant coverage
in the media means that their scrutiny is highly effective in relation to the
topics they do focus on
PMQs is televised every week and is the most watched aspect of politics
among the public, which can be seen as highly important to encouraging
public engagement in politics and exposing government failures to the public.
PMQs can therefore be seen as effectively holding the government to account
as it allows key opposition leaders to directly question and publicly expose
the Prime Minister.
Misleading the House of Commons can lead to huge pressure to resign, which
forces Ministers and the Prime Minister to be competent and on top of their
policy brief and the work of their department.
This shows the accountability of the government to Parliament and decreases
the likelihood that incompetent party leaders who favour political
demagoguery over rational argument will lead a major party into an election,
 PMQs is very boisterous and is more parliamentary theatre than holding the government to account for their policies as they would embarrass and harm the party’s image every Wednesday at
effective scrutiny. PMQs.
April 2018, shadow home secretary Dianne Abbott led to
Amber Rudd’s resignation over the ‘Windrush scandal’
It can be argued this also presents a very negative view of politicians
this scandal demonstrates how the opposition can force
to the public, therefore decreasing trust in politicians and the political
the government o the defensive over issues that the public
process.
feels strongly about

Effective scrutiny is very dependent on the abilities of backbenchers

and the Leader of the Opposition.

Corbyn in particular was a poor performer.

even though the scrutiny of some questions is limited as it

It can be argued that PMQs should be scrapped and replaced with
is partisan, Ministerial Question Time and PMQs do
greater use of other scrutiny, such as the Liaison Committee, which
effectively hold the government to account as they allow
provides far more in depth and meaningful questioning of the Prime
the opposition to directly question key ministers, including
Minister.
the Prime Minister, publicly. This forces them to defend the
government’s decisions and be on top of their policy brief.
Bacbenchers often emailed a list of predetermined questions to
highlight the PM in a polsitive light - back benchers will often follow
The Leader of the Opposition (6 questions) and the leader
through with this and rarely ask PMs questions on their own accord as
of the 3rd largest party (2 questions) have the opportunity
afraid of PMs patronage powers - ability to hire and fire ministers at
to get the government to respond directly to their
any time. This limits scope for constructive and effective debate.
questions in PMQs, therefore giving them the ability to
expose government failure and suggest why they would
be more effective.

The government is forced to address the concerns of the

public, the Opposition and backbenchers.

Corbyn, for example, made a habit of asking questions

from members of the public.

Some Opposition leaders are highly effective in

scrutinising the work of government. Starmer is reasonably
good, especially given his experience as a prosecutor.

Legislative Scrutiny
, it can be argued that Parliament’s legislative scrutiny isn’t effective in
holding the government to account, as the government has control
over most of the Parliamentary timetable and has in recent years
increasingly rushed legislation through the House of Commons,
therefore limiting effective legislative scrutiny from backbenchers.
For example, the recent Illegal Migration Bill was granted just 2 days
of scrutiny in the Committee of the House.
It can be argued that Parliament is effective at holding the
government to account through legislative scrutiny, in
particular due to the House of Lords.
Especially in recent years, when the government has
increasingly rushed legislation through the House of
Commons, the House of Lords has played a crucial role in
Overall, the extent to which Parliament’s legislative scrutiny is effective in
holding the government to account is largely dependent on the size of the
government’s majority.
When the government has a large majority, the House of Commons has little
power to hold it to account. When it has a small majority, however, the House
of Commons has much more power.
When the government has a large majority in the House of Commons,
it is rarely defeated and is able to pass almost all legislation through
the chamber that it wants to.
Blair, for example, was defeated just four times in his 3 terms as Prime
Minister.
Further, the legislative scrutiny of the House of Lords is limited by its
lack of legislative powers.
The Parliaments Acts of 1911 and 1949 prevent the Lords from voting
down any financial bills and mean that the House of Lords can only
delay legislation for up to a year, after which the House of Commons
(dominated by the government) can force through legislation.
This was used 3 times by the Blair government, including to pass the
Hunting Act 2004, which banned hunting with dogs.
The Salisbury Convention prevents the House of Lords from voting
down any legislation that fulfils a commitment in the governing party’s
election manifesto.
scrutinising and revising legislation, as the government has Even when the government does have a large majority, however, the House of
less control over the Parliamentary timetable in the Lords. Lords does provide some effective legislative scrutiny, though its powers are
limited by its lack of legislative powers.
The House of Lords frequently offers technical
amendments to improve and fix bills and is sometimes
called an ‘amending chamber’.
The government and House of Commons accept most of
these amendments. For example, an amendment to the
2018 EU Withdrawal Bill proposed by the House of Lords
to make sure that the UK would be legally able to
participate in EU agencies if it chooses was accepted by
the House of Commons.
Further, though the House of Lords often backs down if its
amendments are rejected by the House of Commons,
recognising its lack of democratic legitimacy, it sometimes
doesn’t and takes a stand against a bill when it feels it is
justified.
This is often to protect human rights or in relation to a bill
that has garnered a significant public backlash/has limited
public support. This delaying power can be very significant
in influencing legislation and holding the government to
account, especially in emergencies when governments
want to pass laws quickly.
For example, in 2001 ten defeats in the House Lords led
the government to remove incitement to religious hatred
as an offence from its anti-terrorism legislation. The House
of Lords argued it would’ve threatened rights.
Parliament can also be seen as effective at holding the
government to account in relation to legislative scrutiny as
the government’s backbenchers can rebel to defeat
government legislation in the House of Commons, which
has happened with increasing frequency in recent years.
Theresa May was defeated thirty-three times when she
had a minority government, including suffering the worst
defeat in modern political history (432-202, with 118 Tories
voting against) on 15 January 2019, when her government
tried to get Parliament to approve its Brexit Withdrawal
Agreement.
Parliament was therefore able to hold the government to
account and tell it to renegotiate a Brexit deal that would
gain the support of a majority of Parliament.
 Evaluate The View That Changes In Recent Decades Have Limited The Executive’s Dominance Over Parliament. (30)
Increase in power of
Backbenchers
Reform of House of Lords
Increase in power of backbenchers through Wright reforms (2010)
and increase in use of urgent questions has had a limited impact
in decreasing the dominance of the executive of parliament
CS showing backbenchers are weak;
Select committees; 2013- as home sec, Theresa May blocked the
Home Affairs Select Committee from
interviewing the head of MI5, Andrew Parker.
-Govt accepts an estimated of 40% of select committee
recommendations but these rarely involve major changes of
policy
Impact of party whips;
Backbenchers are often tied up with party loyalty, and their
influence in the Commons is limited by patronage powers, so they
are still expected to toe the party line and support their leaders,
regardless of their individual views. An example of this is PMQs,
when backbenchers are emailed a list of pre-prepared questions
in advance of the session, which they are advised to ask the Prime
Minister and thus portray them in a positive light. Backbenchers
usually follow this suggestion, and rarely ask questions of their
own accord, demonstrating that despite increased relevance
today, they are ultimately bound to their party and under their
leaders’ control.
it can be argued that the reforms to the House of Lords didn’t limit
the executive’s dominance over Parliament because the House of
Lords’ influence continues to be limited by its lack of legislative
powers, even if the Conservative Party no longer has a majority
and it is now more professional.
The Parliaments Acts of 1911 and 1949 prevent the Lords from
voting down any financial bills and mean that the House of Lords
Above argument doesn’t acknowledge the impact of Wright reforms in
terms of limiting the power of the executive. Wright reforms sought to
make the executive more accountable to parliament and increase the
power of backbenchers.
What the Wright reforms did;
Allows backbenchers to choose the topic for debate for 35 days from
the parliamentary calendar - equates to around one day per week.
Giving backbenchers more of a say on the agenda of Parliament limits
the executives ability to dominate the parliamentary calendar.
I.e Feb 2023 - BBC held a debate in the HOC on the future fp the NHS,
including its funding and its staffing.
Another key Wright reform was to make Select committee chairs
elected via secret ballot - were previously elected by party whips. This
allows prominent backbench MPs who oppose the government on
some issues to obtain key roles in Select committee scrutiny and
limiting the executives dominance over parliament.
the House of Lords is still limited by its lack of legislative powers, New
Labour’s reforms did limit the executive’s dominance over Parliament to
some extent, as they made the chamber more professional in its
scrutiny and removed its in-built Tory majority.
Increase in the use of urgent questions. The speaker decides
whether to grant Urgent Questions and if they do, a government
minister is required to attend the House of Commons to answer it
immediately.
They can be significant in allowing backbenchers/the opposition to
question and scrutinise the government over important issues and
their. use has significantly increased under Speaker Bercow and
Speaker Hoyle.
Lindsay Hoyle has averaged around 0.6 Urgent Questions per day.
On 30th March 2023, for example, there was an Urgent Question in
relation to Junior Doctors strikes that asked the government what
they were doing to resolve the situation.
Judgement; Overall, the increased powers of backbenchers has
increased their significance within Parliament. It has arguably had
little real impact on the executive’s dominance over Parliament,
however, as debates and urgent questions rarely impact policy and
the government continues to dominate the legislative process.
It can be argued that New Labour’s reforms to the House of Lords
limited the executive’s dominance over Parliament, as they made the
House of Lords more independent and professional and therefore
more effective at holding the government to account and voting
down legislation.
Following New Labour’s reforms, which removed all but 92 of the
hereditary peers, the House of Lords no longer has an in-built
 can only delay legislation for up to a year, after which the House
of Commons (dominated by the government) can force through
legislation.
This was used 3 times by the Blair government, including to pass
the Hunting Act 2004, which banned hunting with dogs.
The Salisbury Convention prevents the House of Lords from
voting down any legislation that fulfils a commitment in the
governing party’s election manifesto.
Increasingly weak and
unpopular governments
On the other hand, it can be argued that the minority
governments of Theresa May and Boris Johnson were exceptions
and that the majority of governments since 2010 have had little
success passing the policies they wish to pass.
For example, despite being in charge of a coalition, David
Cameron was defeated just seven times from 2010-2015 and
was able to fulfil key manifesto pledges such as austerity, with a
government bill being successfully passed every six sitting days
of Parliament.
there have certainly been more weak and unpopular governments since
2010 than there were in the few decades prior. For these governments,
the executive’s dominance over Parliament was significantly limited.
Conservative majority, with the crossbenchers ensuring no single
party can get a majority. This leads to greater scrutiny than in the
House of Commons, as the government can’t rely on its majority to
easily pass legislation through the chamber and vote down
amendments to bills.
The House of Lords has also become more professional. For
example, many life peers are ex professional politicians who are able
to provide leadership in the House of Lords and have experience in
parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Andrew Adonis, for example, is a Labour peer who served as
Secretary of State for transport under Gordon Brown.
As life peers aren't elected, they don't need the party machine or
party funding to remain in post, therefore there is less pressure to
vote along party lines, as whips have little bargaining power.
This leads to governments being defeated a great deal more in the
House of Lords than they are in the House of Commons, especially
when the government has a massive majority, in which case the
Lords becomes the effective opposition.
Tony Blair was defeated just 4 times in the House of Commons, all of
which were in his last term, but was defeated 353 times in the House
of Lords.
For example, in 2001 ten defeats in the House Lords led the
government to remove incitement to religious hatred as an offence
from its anti-terrorism legislation.
In comparison to before 2010, many of the governments and
governing parties since 2010 have been weak, divided and unpopular
around key issues, therefore emboldening and increasing the power
of Parliament, as well as decreasing the power of the executive.
In comparison to governments before 2010, these government have
suffered frequent defeats in the House of Commons and therefore
have had to compromise on key policy priorities.
Tony Blair was defeated just four times in his 10 years in office, all of
which were in his third term and Gordon Brown was defeated three
times in his 3 years in office.
Theresa May, by contrast was defeated 33 times when she had a
minority government, including suffering the worst defeat in
modern political history (432-202, with 118 Tories voting against)
on 15 January 2019, when her government tried to get Parliament to
approve its Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

Boris Johnson was defeated 12 in just 6 months when he had a

minority government and 4 times in 3 years when he had a
majority government.

On 15 September 2021, an opposition day motion from the Labour

Party calling on the government to cancel a planned £20/week cut
to Universal Credit was passed 253-0 after the government told its
MPs to abstain.