Evaluate the extent to which Parliament may be considered an ineffective institution
It can be argued that parliament is not an effective institution, due to the matter that it fails to
properly implement its power over government to effectively hold it to account. The link between
parliament and government tends to change over time, and to determine if parliament is an
ineffective institution, it is necessary to look at each area in which they act in, such as
representation, legislation, and scrutiny. In an effective institution, parliament must properly hold
government to account, represent various interests of sections in society, and scrutinise legislation
thoroughly, with the house of lords also scrutinising proposed legislation, ensuring they seek to
improve it and produce the best possible outcome.
In the matter of scrutiny, this is conducted by select committees, which are increasingly significant in
holding government, more specifically the prime minister, to account. Smaller committees are
formed to focus on a specific area of government, to ensure any possible action is held to account.
One of the most knowledgeable committees is the public accounts committee, which dates back to
1861, and is arguably the most influential of the select committees. Their job is to “scrutinise value
for money – the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness”. This committee specifically elects their
chair as a member of the official opposition party, to ensure there is no bias present in their
examination and scrutiny. An example of the PAC committees’ investigations includes the 2023 ‘into
government spending on HS2’, which was highly critical of the governments HS2 policy, also
criticising the ‘unrealistic’ initial budget of £2.6 billion. Overall, this investigation forced the
department of transport to issue statements to publicly defend the policy and contributed to the
governments decision to cancel the HS2 extension to the north. Ultimately, the government is not
obliged to listen to the reports created by select committees, as seen in 2018 where the government
was strongly accused of disregarding the Transport Select Committees’ report surrounding the
expansions on Heathrow Airport. In addition, the increasing use of secondary legislation to change
laws limits the powers of MPs, therefore this solidifies the idea that this area of government scrutiny
is ineffective. In addition, it can be argued that Prime Ministers Questions are a controversial topic,
in the sense that many believe it is seen as more of a media event for their personalities rather than
holding the governing party to account. The leader of the official opposition party will debate and
question the governing party to scrutinise their actions. Prime ministers questions take place on
Wednesdays and are often live streamed, so the public can watch, however this does not change the
fact that prime ministers are often seen evading questions proposed to them, which does not prove
effective in scrutinising government effectively. This topic of prime ministers ignoring questions
sparked public defence in creating a petition to say that the speaker must ensure the question is
answered, however this was rejected as “its surrounding something that the UK government or
Parliament is not directly responsible for” meaning that this issue may continue to arise, affecting
thorough scrutiny within the institution.
On the topic of legislation, the house of commons support parliament by granting it with legitimacy,
and their role is to propose new legislation and bills within parliament and to have it debated to
ultimately be passed, this is overviewed through multiple stages to ensure all refinements can be
fulfilled before the bill is passed. This is done effectively as there are always new bills being
It can be argued that parliament is not an effective institution, due to the matter that it fails to
properly implement its power over government to effectively hold it to account. The link between
parliament and government tends to change over time, and to determine if parliament is an
ineffective institution, it is necessary to look at each area in which they act in, such as
representation, legislation, and scrutiny. In an effective institution, parliament must properly hold
government to account, represent various interests of sections in society, and scrutinise legislation
thoroughly, with the house of lords also scrutinising proposed legislation, ensuring they seek to
improve it and produce the best possible outcome.
In the matter of scrutiny, this is conducted by select committees, which are increasingly significant in
holding government, more specifically the prime minister, to account. Smaller committees are
formed to focus on a specific area of government, to ensure any possible action is held to account.
One of the most knowledgeable committees is the public accounts committee, which dates back to
1861, and is arguably the most influential of the select committees. Their job is to “scrutinise value
for money – the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness”. This committee specifically elects their
chair as a member of the official opposition party, to ensure there is no bias present in their
examination and scrutiny. An example of the PAC committees’ investigations includes the 2023 ‘into
government spending on HS2’, which was highly critical of the governments HS2 policy, also
criticising the ‘unrealistic’ initial budget of £2.6 billion. Overall, this investigation forced the
department of transport to issue statements to publicly defend the policy and contributed to the
governments decision to cancel the HS2 extension to the north. Ultimately, the government is not
obliged to listen to the reports created by select committees, as seen in 2018 where the government
was strongly accused of disregarding the Transport Select Committees’ report surrounding the
expansions on Heathrow Airport. In addition, the increasing use of secondary legislation to change
laws limits the powers of MPs, therefore this solidifies the idea that this area of government scrutiny
is ineffective. In addition, it can be argued that Prime Ministers Questions are a controversial topic,
in the sense that many believe it is seen as more of a media event for their personalities rather than
holding the governing party to account. The leader of the official opposition party will debate and
question the governing party to scrutinise their actions. Prime ministers questions take place on
Wednesdays and are often live streamed, so the public can watch, however this does not change the
fact that prime ministers are often seen evading questions proposed to them, which does not prove
effective in scrutinising government effectively. This topic of prime ministers ignoring questions
sparked public defence in creating a petition to say that the speaker must ensure the question is
answered, however this was rejected as “its surrounding something that the UK government or
Parliament is not directly responsible for” meaning that this issue may continue to arise, affecting
thorough scrutiny within the institution.
On the topic of legislation, the house of commons support parliament by granting it with legitimacy,
and their role is to propose new legislation and bills within parliament and to have it debated to
ultimately be passed, this is overviewed through multiple stages to ensure all refinements can be
fulfilled before the bill is passed. This is done effectively as there are always new bills being
