Evaluate the view that select committees are the most effective way for
the HOC to hold the executive to account
I agree with the view that select committees are the most effective way for the
HOC to hold the executive to account. There is a select committee for every
government department with the aim of scrutinizing policy for example public
account committee and liaison committee. Their ability to investigate and
produce reports gives them sufficient expertise to scrutinize departments and
their policies. Whilst there are other forms of holding the executive to account
such as PMQs and opposition days overall they are not as effective as select
committees.
Select committees are the most effective way for the HOC to hold the executive
to account because of their expertise. Members of select committees examine
policies and gather evidence by summoning expert such as ministers, civil
servants and members of the public, this gives them the expertise needed to
hold the executive to account by questioning relevant ministers on their policies.
For example, in 2018 Yvette Cooper chairwoman of the Commons Home Affairs
select committee, asked Amber Rudd questions about the handling of the
Windrush scandal which portrayed her to be unknowledgeable about the target
for removals thus led to her resignation. This demonstrates that select
committees are effective because of their ability to ask specific questions based
on their expertise and hold ministers to account by demanding an answer or
forcing a resignation. However, its effectiveness in holding the executive to
account is limited because select committees can easily be avoided. For example
Boris Johnson was able to avoid scrutiny by cancelling two appointments to
attend the liaison committee. Therefore, select committees inability to force
attendance means it is harder to regularly hold the executive to account.
Nevertheless, or those select committees can't force attendance from PM's and
MP's ultimately they do attend as it would be embarrassing for them and their
party not too. Despite Boris Johnson avoiding scrutiny by not turning up to the
lies in committee he ultimately had to attend in 2022 where he was questioned
about the low cost of living crisis and on Ukraine. During a time when Johnson’s
government was collapsing due to resignations the liars and committee further
how the executive to account by scrutinising the PM's policies unplanned full
stop therefore the strongest argument is that select committees are the most
effective way for the house of commons to hold the executive to account due to
their expertise and ability to question ministers on policies in depth.
Another effective way for the HOC to hold the executive to account is through
weekly PMQs. The opposition leader’s ability to ask 6 questions usually about
current affairs means the PM is accountable weekly for his action. Furthermore,
PMQs is seen as an opportunity for backbenchers to see the progress in policies
and scrutinise it. For example, in May 2024 Starmer effectively used his
questions in PMQs to effectively scrutinise the impact of the Rwanda bill calling it
a gimmick to which Sunak could not effectively respond to. This shows that PMQs
is effective in scrutinising recent government policy and puts pressure on the PM
as it is televised in front of the electorate. However, PMQs are not as effective as
select committees due to its media presence. PMQs are watched more and more
by the electorates and the politicians are aware of this so PMQs provides little
effective scrutiny and its more focused on partisan political point scoring. In
the HOC to hold the executive to account
I agree with the view that select committees are the most effective way for the
HOC to hold the executive to account. There is a select committee for every
government department with the aim of scrutinizing policy for example public
account committee and liaison committee. Their ability to investigate and
produce reports gives them sufficient expertise to scrutinize departments and
their policies. Whilst there are other forms of holding the executive to account
such as PMQs and opposition days overall they are not as effective as select
committees.
Select committees are the most effective way for the HOC to hold the executive
to account because of their expertise. Members of select committees examine
policies and gather evidence by summoning expert such as ministers, civil
servants and members of the public, this gives them the expertise needed to
hold the executive to account by questioning relevant ministers on their policies.
For example, in 2018 Yvette Cooper chairwoman of the Commons Home Affairs
select committee, asked Amber Rudd questions about the handling of the
Windrush scandal which portrayed her to be unknowledgeable about the target
for removals thus led to her resignation. This demonstrates that select
committees are effective because of their ability to ask specific questions based
on their expertise and hold ministers to account by demanding an answer or
forcing a resignation. However, its effectiveness in holding the executive to
account is limited because select committees can easily be avoided. For example
Boris Johnson was able to avoid scrutiny by cancelling two appointments to
attend the liaison committee. Therefore, select committees inability to force
attendance means it is harder to regularly hold the executive to account.
Nevertheless, or those select committees can't force attendance from PM's and
MP's ultimately they do attend as it would be embarrassing for them and their
party not too. Despite Boris Johnson avoiding scrutiny by not turning up to the
lies in committee he ultimately had to attend in 2022 where he was questioned
about the low cost of living crisis and on Ukraine. During a time when Johnson’s
government was collapsing due to resignations the liars and committee further
how the executive to account by scrutinising the PM's policies unplanned full
stop therefore the strongest argument is that select committees are the most
effective way for the house of commons to hold the executive to account due to
their expertise and ability to question ministers on policies in depth.
Another effective way for the HOC to hold the executive to account is through
weekly PMQs. The opposition leader’s ability to ask 6 questions usually about
current affairs means the PM is accountable weekly for his action. Furthermore,
PMQs is seen as an opportunity for backbenchers to see the progress in policies
and scrutinise it. For example, in May 2024 Starmer effectively used his
questions in PMQs to effectively scrutinise the impact of the Rwanda bill calling it
a gimmick to which Sunak could not effectively respond to. This shows that PMQs
is effective in scrutinising recent government policy and puts pressure on the PM
as it is televised in front of the electorate. However, PMQs are not as effective as
select committees due to its media presence. PMQs are watched more and more
by the electorates and the politicians are aware of this so PMQs provides little
effective scrutiny and its more focused on partisan political point scoring. In
