‘Parliament is not an effective check on the executive.’ Analyse and evaluate this Statement.
The work of the executive is vital to achieving economic, social and political success in the UK.
However, their work must be checked to make sure it is representative of all of Parliament's
ideas. Some consider Parliament as an ineffective check on the executive. This is due to a lack
of tangible outcomes during debates and questioning, the seemingly biased nature of select
committees and the limited power of the House of Lords.
Debates are an effective way in which Parliament checks the executives' work. Parliamentary
debates allow all elected MPs to discuss, object and agree on topics such as policy change,
proposed amendments and bills. These can be to do with international, national or more local
issues. An example of a major Parliamentary debate, was the debate on Boris Johnson’s Brexit
Withdrawal Bill in October 2019 that eventually paved the way for a vote to pass the bill as
legislation. Even though the proposed legislation was passed, the Opposition made sure that
there were terms that the deal had to follow, for example, it having no effect on the economy or
workers rights and thus making it a good check on the executive. Another example of a
parliamentary debate is the debate on whether military action should be taken against Syria in
2013. During this debate, Cameron proposed that an international response should be made to
the use of chemical weapons in Syria. However, the leader of the opposition at the time, Ed
Milliband, opposed this stance which in turn led to a delayed response from the UK and
therefore made it a good check on the work of the executive. On the contrary, Parliamentary
debates often lead to an unrepresentative conclusion made by the executive. This is usually due
to a large government majority being present. For example, during a debate on the new ‘Tiered
system’ proposed by the executive, a vote was made on whether the new guidelines should
become legislation. Although the leader of the opposition stated he did not agree with the basis
of the new rules, he said that his party would vote for them as there was no other alternative.
This therefore made the debate an ineffective check on the executive as the new legislation was
not representative of the opposition. Furthermore, questions that will be during the debate are
written beforehand. This allows MPs and cabinet ministers to create a generic response to the
question and possibly enable themselves to avoid answering it completely. This in turn means
that sometimes no result can be made of a parliamentary debate and therefore makes them an
ineffective check on the executive.
Select committees are also an effective way in which Parliament checks the executive. These
committees, first set up in 1979, shadow each governmental department and also contain a
liaison committee which can directly question and check the work of the PM. Due to select
committees having cross-party policies, their work on checking the work of the executive is
sometimes viewed as very effective. An example of a select committee being an effective check
on the executive was then the Health Select Committee interviewing Russell Brand on the topic
of illegal drugs, which examined the accusation that people found in possession of these
substances in Britain are likely to be punished rather than rehabilitated. This in turn led to further
research done by the Health department into the subject. To add to this, select committees can
also call experts in specific fields to present evidence and information on a specific issue or
proposal. An example of this was in 2011 when the Sport, Media and Culture committee made
an inquiry into how football was being governed. During this inquiry, the committee called upon
The work of the executive is vital to achieving economic, social and political success in the UK.
However, their work must be checked to make sure it is representative of all of Parliament's
ideas. Some consider Parliament as an ineffective check on the executive. This is due to a lack
of tangible outcomes during debates and questioning, the seemingly biased nature of select
committees and the limited power of the House of Lords.
Debates are an effective way in which Parliament checks the executives' work. Parliamentary
debates allow all elected MPs to discuss, object and agree on topics such as policy change,
proposed amendments and bills. These can be to do with international, national or more local
issues. An example of a major Parliamentary debate, was the debate on Boris Johnson’s Brexit
Withdrawal Bill in October 2019 that eventually paved the way for a vote to pass the bill as
legislation. Even though the proposed legislation was passed, the Opposition made sure that
there were terms that the deal had to follow, for example, it having no effect on the economy or
workers rights and thus making it a good check on the executive. Another example of a
parliamentary debate is the debate on whether military action should be taken against Syria in
2013. During this debate, Cameron proposed that an international response should be made to
the use of chemical weapons in Syria. However, the leader of the opposition at the time, Ed
Milliband, opposed this stance which in turn led to a delayed response from the UK and
therefore made it a good check on the work of the executive. On the contrary, Parliamentary
debates often lead to an unrepresentative conclusion made by the executive. This is usually due
to a large government majority being present. For example, during a debate on the new ‘Tiered
system’ proposed by the executive, a vote was made on whether the new guidelines should
become legislation. Although the leader of the opposition stated he did not agree with the basis
of the new rules, he said that his party would vote for them as there was no other alternative.
This therefore made the debate an ineffective check on the executive as the new legislation was
not representative of the opposition. Furthermore, questions that will be during the debate are
written beforehand. This allows MPs and cabinet ministers to create a generic response to the
question and possibly enable themselves to avoid answering it completely. This in turn means
that sometimes no result can be made of a parliamentary debate and therefore makes them an
ineffective check on the executive.
Select committees are also an effective way in which Parliament checks the executive. These
committees, first set up in 1979, shadow each governmental department and also contain a
liaison committee which can directly question and check the work of the PM. Due to select
committees having cross-party policies, their work on checking the work of the executive is
sometimes viewed as very effective. An example of a select committee being an effective check
on the executive was then the Health Select Committee interviewing Russell Brand on the topic
of illegal drugs, which examined the accusation that people found in possession of these
substances in Britain are likely to be punished rather than rehabilitated. This in turn led to further
research done by the Health department into the subject. To add to this, select committees can
also call experts in specific fields to present evidence and information on a specific issue or
proposal. An example of this was in 2011 when the Sport, Media and Culture committee made
an inquiry into how football was being governed. During this inquiry, the committee called upon
