Political Accountability
Responsibility for official action, scrutinise gov. Not legally binding. Extends to
issues that go beyond legality. Puts pressure on gov to justify decisions.
Mechanisms:
Gov is accountable to civil society (activist groups e.g. Just Stop Oil, says gov aren’t
meeting their international commitments to reduce carbon emissions), pressure
groups, media (MPs expenses scandal), individuals (Marcus Rashford, challenged
govs decision to reduce school meal entitlement).
Mechanisms are tools that scrutinise gov:
- PMs questions - opportunity for leader of opposition & others to scrutinise.
May not be effective, can only influence public. No systematic change. Just
mudslinging, don’t remember actual scrutiny e.g. Sunak’s transphobic
remarks, all over headlines. Giving half the time to gov MPs is a waste,
aren’t going to scrutinise their boss.
- -Select committees - strongest mechanism. Not legally binding but have
enormous authority, good at putting pressure on. Main function is to require
ministers to justify their decisions. E.g. EU committee.
- Inquiries - e.g. Grenfell Inquiry, Covid Inquiry. Sometimes inquiries are
statutory and chaired by a judge under Inquiries act 2005. Sometimes
independent panels (e.g. Hillsborough independent panel). Not effective.
Focus on looking back. Easy for gov to say they’ve learnt from past decisions
but doesn’t impact current decisions. A lot of effort to keep inquiries in the
headlines. Doesn’t focus on the future.
- The Freedom of Info act 2000 - allows anyone to write to gov to provide info
on a decision. Encourages more responsibility (e.g. Prince Charles Papers).
Weakness that PM can veto (s.53) & stop people digging too deep. S.18
refusal may be challenged before the info commissioner & appealed into
tribunals. Veto is controversial, only 7 uses since 2000 inc. dept of health
risk register (2012). Effects; MPs expenses crisis (2009-10), claims under
FoI for access to expenses claimed by MPs. tried to overturn, leaked by daily
telegraph.
Dangers of PA:
No legally binding force. A minister may resign before they are sanctioned. System
has worked effectively e.g. Boris, partygate scandal (exposed through covid inquiry
& media exposure). Media has an important role, inquiries couldn’t force him to
resign.
Responsibility for official action, scrutinise gov. Not legally binding. Extends to
issues that go beyond legality. Puts pressure on gov to justify decisions.
Mechanisms:
Gov is accountable to civil society (activist groups e.g. Just Stop Oil, says gov aren’t
meeting their international commitments to reduce carbon emissions), pressure
groups, media (MPs expenses scandal), individuals (Marcus Rashford, challenged
govs decision to reduce school meal entitlement).
Mechanisms are tools that scrutinise gov:
- PMs questions - opportunity for leader of opposition & others to scrutinise.
May not be effective, can only influence public. No systematic change. Just
mudslinging, don’t remember actual scrutiny e.g. Sunak’s transphobic
remarks, all over headlines. Giving half the time to gov MPs is a waste,
aren’t going to scrutinise their boss.
- -Select committees - strongest mechanism. Not legally binding but have
enormous authority, good at putting pressure on. Main function is to require
ministers to justify their decisions. E.g. EU committee.
- Inquiries - e.g. Grenfell Inquiry, Covid Inquiry. Sometimes inquiries are
statutory and chaired by a judge under Inquiries act 2005. Sometimes
independent panels (e.g. Hillsborough independent panel). Not effective.
Focus on looking back. Easy for gov to say they’ve learnt from past decisions
but doesn’t impact current decisions. A lot of effort to keep inquiries in the
headlines. Doesn’t focus on the future.
- The Freedom of Info act 2000 - allows anyone to write to gov to provide info
on a decision. Encourages more responsibility (e.g. Prince Charles Papers).
Weakness that PM can veto (s.53) & stop people digging too deep. S.18
refusal may be challenged before the info commissioner & appealed into
tribunals. Veto is controversial, only 7 uses since 2000 inc. dept of health
risk register (2012). Effects; MPs expenses crisis (2009-10), claims under
FoI for access to expenses claimed by MPs. tried to overturn, leaked by daily
telegraph.
Dangers of PA:
No legally binding force. A minister may resign before they are sanctioned. System
has worked effectively e.g. Boris, partygate scandal (exposed through covid inquiry
& media exposure). Media has an important role, inquiries couldn’t force him to
resign.
