Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

parliament - Coggle Diagram

- - - - enjoy good deal of freedom from gov interference - frontbenchers and whips do not serve in select committees - gov voice to backbench concerns
      - work carried out by committees is consensual rather than combative in nature MPs generally not concerned with political point scoring
      - have power to gather written and oral evidence, summon witnesses including ministers, civil servants, experts
      - chairing select committee has become alternative career to becoming minister - yvette cooper chair of home affairs committee have up on career as labour front bench opting instead for role than involves intricate scrutiny
      - select committee reports taken seriously by gov - accepts estimated 40% of recommendations
    - - governing party has majority of seats in committee and chairs may not always be independent from departments - former health secretary hunt's election as chair of the health select committee in 2020 raised doubt as to how well he would hold department to account
      - not all committees work by consensus - exiting eu committee lacked cross party cohesion - may 2018 con committee members criticised it for being too pro remain - divides allowed gov to ignore recommendations made
      - powers to compel witnesses to appear weak and undefined - 2013 may as home secretary blocked home affairs select committee from interviewing head of MI5
      - prospect of party promotion could still affect effective scrutiny - former chair of home affairs select committee, rory stewart became prisoners minister under may gov - gov job > committee assignment
      - can only advise gov by making recommendations - non binding and only concern minor change in policy
  - - - yes
        
        provide detailed line by line examination of bill and propose amendments - allows committees to consider problems with legislation not recognised in earlier readings
        
        ministers attending come from department involved and are matched by shadow cabinet brings certain degree of different expertise to each discussion
      - no
        
        gov whips can dominate proceedings - committee accepts majority of government amendments - 99% of ministerial amendments succeed only 1% of non government amendments succeed
        
        bill committees involved at latter stages of legislative process already been a commons vote on second reading - legislation therefore considered 'done deal'
        
        lack expertises their membership heavily controlled by whips - 2011 sarah wollaston con BB MP prevented from sitting on public bill committee scrutinising changes to the NHS - claimed she would be too critical as had worked as a doctor for 24 years
- - - - initiate legislation through PMB
      - represent interests of constituency
      - threaten a backbench rebellion by voting against wishes of party leadership
      - scrutinise government policy and decisions
      - can take positions of leadership in HOC by becoming select committee chairs
      - can ask parliamentary questions and participate in debates
    - - yes
        
        increasinly willing to defy the whip - helps to hold gov to acocunt
        eg. 2020 38 tory MPs voted against gov plans to allow huawei to be used in the UK 5G mobile network - gov won the vote but changed its policy soon after
        
        creation of backbench business committee has allowed greater say on which issues are discussed
        eg. dec 2020 BBC secured a debate on raising awareness about teenage cancer
        
        backbenchers have more invluence in hung parliaments increasing ability to question gov actions
        eg. 2017-19 speaker accepted far higher number of urgent questions which allow BB MPs to summon ministers to HOC to answer questions
      - no
        
        party whips control the majority of voting outcomes - voting against gov risks promotion - rare for rebellion to lead to a defeat of a majority government
        
        many of debates BBC wins rime for in westminster hall not in HOC - debates held in westminster do not enjoy same status as those held in commons - not vote after these debates so influence is limited
        
        BB have less influence when gov has a majority - rebellions more easily overcome
- - - - overlaps with scrutiny function - ensure that only worthwhile laws are passed without preventing gov from functioning
- - - - leader of that party described as the leader of the opposition
- - - - benn act in 2019 required gov to seek an extension to brexit if no deal on the UK relations with EU could be reached by the initial deadlined to leave on 31 oct
- - - - some have no party affiliation and are fully independent - crossbench MPs
    - - represent different sections of society
      - advocate in favour of important political causes
      - peers with special expertise play role in examining proposed legislation
      - every gov department has front bench representative in the lords
        
        peers have opportunity to call government to account
- - - - second stage failed to be completed because politicians could not choose between having fully elected chamber to keep in the HOL people who have amassed special expertise
    - - not elected
        
        current balance and composition of HOL - no party has majority - allows for useful check on gov - elected chamber could produce gov majority in both
        
        elections more likely to remove wisdom, independence and experience of peers - current chamber benefits from the presence of ex ministers and other experts willing to stand up for unpopular but worthwhile causes
        
        hereditary peers most undemocratic element of HOL have largely been removed by first stage of reforms
        
        elected HOL could result in gridlock since parliament acts limit the chambers powers would become unjustified - systems with coequal legislative chambers often find it difficult to pass budgets
      - elected
        
        lords would be able to stand up to government more if it enjoyed greater democratic legitimacy
        
        lack of social diversity and regional imbalance of HOL could be addressed by elected chamber - needs of minority groups and various UK regions better met
        
        still 92 hereditary peers who remain and vote on regular basis
        
        two elected chambers that challenge each other could prevent executive dominance