Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Holding the Executive to account - Coggle Diagram
Holding the Executive to account
Questioning
Parliament requires that ministers, including the PM answer backbencher questions in the Commons, PMQ's forces the PM to be well informed about policy and the wider news agenda
PMQ's can have direct impacts, in 2017 Jeremy Corbyn used it to overturn the premium rate number used to call Universal Credit
The speaker can raise urgent questions which allow the Commons to demand the attendance of the relevant minister
PMQ's is often political theatre rather than proper scrutiny, often with improper behaviour
Questions can be staged by friendly backbenchers and it is often seen as simply point scoring
Select Committees
Departmental select committees are cross party groups, representative of the Commons that have the power to send for "papers, persons and records", benefited by the Wright reforms
They have an interrogative and more independent style of questioning, offering well paid and promising career prospectives
Reports receive a lot of publicity, especially when critical (PAC in 2013 held Amazon, Starbucks and Google to account for the little tax they pay)
However they often criticise problems that have already occurred, there is no mandate to act on them and MP's lack proper research support
Legislative Committees
After a bill reaches it's second reading, it reaches a committee stage where public bill committees are created to scrutinise and consider amendments
Public Bill Committee's were improved in 2007, given greater scrutiny privileges
However they lack independence as membership is dominated by party whips, amendments contrary to strong government majority are rarely even considered
Activities of the opposition & Extremities
The ability of the opposition to scrutinise is affected by size and unity of the government and shadow government, and the length of time in office, e.g the Blair opposition (1994-97) was good at highlighting weakness with Major and providing alternatives
In extreme circumstances, a vote of no confidence can be called by the Commons, James Callaghan 1979
Constituents can draw attention their grievances to MP's
General debating, increased by the Wright reforms
Backbenchers
Traditionally, they have been seen as "lobby folder", but due to the Wright reforms of 2009 their role has evolved
Parliamentary Privilege - refers to the fact that within Parliament, MP's are free to speak without prosecution for slander
Backbench Business Committee - the role has increased as they now choose topics to debate for 30 days, either by individuals or petitions / e-petitions
Independence - since 2007, they have become more independent when voting in Parliament , often seeking amendments, select committees removed the Whip's power over membership , often embarrassing the government or other bodies
Limits to their power include the incentives of whips, e.g trips, reports, promotions and the negatives
Compared to the government they lack resources and have limited budget / staff
In a majority government, the importance of individual MP's is reduced, meaning often they accept legislative programmes
Judicial Neutrality - refers to the principle that judges should not be politically activate or motivated and should show no personal bias, reaching decisions on the basis of law alone
Judicial Independence - actions and decisions of judges should not be influenced by pressure from the executive and Parliament, it implies strict separation between the branches of government
Impact of the HRA (1998) - still cannot rule the actions of Parliament unconstitutional (like in America), but can issue a declaration of incompatibility which can be ignored, but adds significant political pressure to review the issue
Since the HRA, the Supreme Court has become more involved in human rights debates caused by government actions, senior judges often make public comments about major issues and has acquired a reputation for standing up for rights
In Freedom of Information cases, the Supreme Court has upheld decisions to publish information against ministerial wishes
However the Supreme Court cannot be proactive, strike down statute law, any decisions made can have legislation passed by Parliament to allow government wishes and they remain unelected