‹ All questionsPaper 2 · 2023 Mock · 30 marks
Using the source, evaluate the view that Parliament is largely effective at challenging the work of the Government.
Parliament
Source
Source 1(a) explores one of Parliament's main roles, which is to challenge the work of the Government. The House of Commons and the House of Lords use similar methods of scrutiny, although the procedures vary.
The case that Parliament does challenge effectively
There has been an increasing use of urgent questions to really scrutinise the Government. Debates on the big issues of the day are well attended and gain extensive media coverage. The Lords has fewer time constraints and greater specialism.
In the Commons, Departmental Select Committees are the most effective tool for scrutiny, especially since the Wright reforms. Public Bill Committees are now able to call for expert witnesses. In the Lords, the forensic scrutiny of legislation delivers better law, because of the greater political independence of peers.
The case that Parliament struggles to challenge
Prime Minister's Questions create moments of high drama but are seen as too partisan. The Liaison Committee is less partisan and more detailed but is seen by the media as dull and boring. However, ultimately the Government controls most of the parliamentary timetable and can whip its MPs. Debates in the Lords rarely impact on the media or government policy.
Select Committee recommendations are often ignored. Public Bill Committees are criticised as offering weak scrutiny of legislation as they are heavily whipped and dominated by party politics. Ultimately, the Commons has the final say on legislation and frequently overturns amendments made in the Lords. This is because the Government dominates the Commons.
Mark scheme: agreement
AO1: PMQs and the Liaison Committee in the Commons are important in challenging the government.
AO2: PMQs is high-profile, dramatic and captures the attention of the media and gives the LOTO the ability to challenge the PM, whilst the Liaison Committee creates a more detailed, less partisan scrutiny of the PM so complements PMQs.
AO3: this suggests that both PMQs and the liaison committee offer effective routes for challenging the work of government.
AO1: Debates in the Lords and Commons, as well as the use of urgent questions in the Commons in are effective at challenging the government.
AO2: Debates in the Lords are high quality due to specialism and lack of time constraints, whilst debates and increasing use of urgent questions in the Commons place the government under greater scrutiny.
AO3: this suggests that both Houses have their own strengths when it comes to challenging the work of government.
AO1: Departmental Select Committees are seen as the most powerful method of scrutiny.
AO2: Departmental Select Committees are more independent, professional and experienced since the Wright reforms, attracting media attention with the government accepting around a third of significant recommendations and leading to ministers having to account for their actions (Amber Rudd – deportation).
AO3: this clearly shows that since the reforms, committees in the House have become one of the most effective ways of challenging the work of the government.
AO1: Scrutiny of legislation in the Lords and Commons in challenging the work of government is largely effective.
AO2: Public Bill Committees in the Commons are strengthened by being able to call expert witnesses and contain more expertise than if often recognised, whilst the Lords is more specialist, independent and lacks time constraints, which means the Lords' legislative scrutiny complements effectively the work of the Commons in challenging and scrutinising the government.
AO3: this means the Lords' legislative scrutiny complements effectively the work of the Commons in challenging and scrutinising the government.
Mark scheme: disagreement
AO1: PMQs is too partisan whilst the Liaison Committee receives little attention from the media.
AO2: PMQs might be dramatic, but it rarely has any great impact on government policy or sheds much light on its actions due its party political nature, whilst the Liaison Committee has limited media attention.
AO3: meaning that neither provides an effective path for the Commons to challenge the work of the government.
AO1: Debates offer only a limited challenge to the government.
AO2: The timetable in the Commons is largely controlled by the government, whilst in the end MPs are whipped. This means that the government with a majority can exert some control on the debate and a lot of control on any votes, whilst debates in the Lords are rarely seen or heard beyond the chamber.
AO3: suggesting that the debating function has very limited ability to challenge the work of the government.
AO1: Departmental Select Committees' recommendations are rarely implemented.
AO2: Departmental Select Committees in the Commons have many powers but do not have the power to force the government to take action on their recommendations beyond acknowledging the report, and two-thirds of all significant recommendations to policy are not implemented.
AO3: reflecting the view that committees in the House are not as effective as it first appears in challenging the work of governments.
AO1: Legislative scrutiny in both Houses is too weak.
AO2: Public Bill Committees are whipped and partisan, giving the government control. Nearly all successful amendments are introduced by the government, whilst the amendments made by the Lords are frequently overturned by the Commons, which is dominated by the government.
AO3: reflecting the view that government dominance makes challenging its work extremely difficult.