Arguably, no real consistently effective method of Parliamentary scrutiny exists in today’s present political and social climate. Whilst various methods do exist, such as Prime Minister’s Question Time and Select Committees, this essay will argue that these methods are only somewhat effective and have areas for development, supporting the first statement to some extent. Select Committees for example, whilst ideally ought to be a strong method of scrutinising Parliament on both policy making and past conduct of administration, are constricted by their limited powers and their framework which means that they often tend to be dominated by the ruling party, and so scrutiny is limited. However, there appears to be no distinction in the effectiveness of these methods in regard to their influence on current policy making vs the conduct of past administration, i.e. Select Committees are sometimes able to effectively scrutinise both policies and past conduct, as opposed to being most effective in the latter and failing in the former.
Our current system of Select Committees was established in 1979, where it was decided that there ought to be a departmental body under the House of Commons dedicated to the scrutiny of government administrations, policy and legislation making, and expenditures, with the purpose of creating a more accountable and open government, and to tackle the imbalance of power created by the executive and the legislature. Each committee usually has between 11 to 16 members, with each committee make-up proportionate to party representation. The powers of Select Committees include the ability to summon individuals, request further information, and publish reports, following which government has a set amount of time to respond.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of these various methods of scrutiny, it is important to first define and understand what constitutes as good ‘scrutiny’. Good scrutiny should be able to ‘address both points of principle and detail, balancing informed, evidence-based challenge to the policy underpinning legislation’ , and ideally be able to ‘draw on the relevant knowledge and experience of Members of the House of Lords, and facilitate dialogue with ministers with specific policy responsibility for the legislation.’ When observing the current system of Select Committees, it appears to fall short of these requirements, inhibiting its ability to be able to both effectively scrutinise government policy and past administrations on a consistent level.
Firstly, it could be argued that Select Committees do not wield enough power to be wholly effective at scrutiny, unless the policy of interest is one of great public interest where backlash is likely to occur. Although the committees are able to request witnesses and individuals to answer on a particular enquiry, in reality they are able to do little more than simply request information. For example, in 2013, during the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s inquiry to the increasingly rising cost of energy, only one out of the six energy companies requested actually responded by sending their CEO , again undermining the ability of Select Committees to effectively conduct scrutiny and collect sufficient and thorough evidence. Whilst civil servants can be compelled to answer before a committee, ministers have the ability to refuse, and often do so. With civil servants acting on behalf of ministers, the committee are often unlikely to draw out wholly truthful and forthcoming responses. In the common case where a civil servant refuses to attend an inquiry, usually at the order of their minister, the committee can do little more than hold said individual into ‘contempt’, which in reality is a relatively useless term as the committees themselves are unable to impose sanctions for contempt, and the House of Commons is unlikely to do so except in exceptional circumstance. Even where a civil- servant attends, they are often unwilling to answer the questions of the committee or provide any useful information. For example, Oliver Robbins, civil servant of the Second Permanent Secretary of the Home Office, was asked to leave a committee session after failure to adequately co-operate and answer the queries presented. This event is evidence of type of issues often faced by Select Committees when attempting to conduct scrutiny, and also highlights the lack of seriousness some government departments treat the committees with. As reported in Select Committees Effectiveness, Resources and Power, Select Committees ‘face some obstacles’ as ‘departments do not always co-operate fully with committee inquiries and Government imposes constraints on committees’ access to information and witnesses.’ For Select Committees to be more effective, ministers themselves should have a duty to give evidence before committees where their department’s conduct is in question.
Whilst Select Committees are indeed constrained in power, there have however been instances whereby reports produced by committees have appeared to have influenced government policy, or forced government to rethink their approach. For example, research conducted by Nuffield Foundation has revealed that approximately a third of Select Committee proposals have found their way into actual government policy , challenging the idea that Select Committees are completely ineffective in scrutinising government legislation and policy making. According to the study, ‘In overall terms, the table suggests that the government accepts committees’ recommendations more often than it rejects them: 40% of recommendations were either fully or partially accepted compared to 33% which were fully or partially rejected.’, supporting the argument laid out that Select Committees are somewhat effective in scrutiny of policy and undermining the claim that Committees are only effective at scrutinising past conduct or administration. However, it should be noted that this study utilised a more broader measure of acceptance, whereas other studies that used a more narrower measure reported a significantly lower acceptance rate of 5% (Hindmoor, Larkin and Kennon (2009) . Furthermore, there exists discrepancies between the various committees studied, with some reporting greater acceptances than others, suggesting that the government are more likely to accept suggestions from certain committee groups than others, although, there may be valid reasons for this. For example, the committee dedicated to Defence can only exert little open influence in policy making due to the classified and secretive nature of the department and national defence. However, whilst this raises some doubts over the validity of the study, it is still important to recognise the influence of these committees on policy making, even if it only occurs on a small scale and there still exists much room for development.
Although creating reports relating to various government policies is a key and crucial aspect of the duties of a Select Committee, they frequently undertake inquiries into past conduct and administrations, as seen in the Culture Media and Sport committee’s inquiry into the 2012 Phone Hacking Scandal. As part of the inquiry, the committees were able to call on a wide range of influential witnesses central to the scandal, such as James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch, and John Yates QPM, Acting Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service. Whilst this inquiry was thorough and drew upon a substantial range of witnesses, it was undermined due to conflicting opinions amongst the committee members themselves. Indeed, it can be said that there were greater sympathies towards Murdoch by the conservative members, who thought that he should not have faced any criticism whatsoever in the report. It is reported that ‘Labour MPs and the sole Liberal Democrat, Adrian Sanders, voted together in a bloc of six against the five Conservatives to insert the criticisms of Rupert Murdoch.’ . Although the phone hacking scandal is itself not tired directly to central government, the inability of the committee to reach a unanimous decision again highlights another flaw of Select Committees. Whilst Select Committees may be the least partisan way of government scrutiny when compared to alternatives (e.g. Parliamentary Debates), the political make-up of these committees can sometimes lead to instances where there is a clear divide of opinion due to party biases, inhibiting the committee’s ability to produce a unanimous report with a clear conclusion. This challenges the idea that Select Committees are most effective at scrutinising past conduct and administration, although that is not say they are completely ineffective in this area as instances like this are not too common on the whole.
Another method of scrutiny is Prime Minister Questions, commonly known as ‘PMQs’. PMQs are televised every week, and are an opportunity for both public engagement in politics and the scrutiny of government policies by the opposition. Although PMQs are indeed open and transparent in that the public are able to observe this questioning in the absence of edits and planned responses, arguably PMQs do little to provide scrutiny of either government policies or the past conduct of government. Indeed, PMQs have been criticised for being nothing more than ‘part of the theatre of politics’ where political parties attack each other ‘as part of an unedifying political point scoring game.’ Furthermore, politicians tend to simply repeat soundbites as opposed to answering the actual question posed, again highlighting the inability of PMQs to act as an effective method of scrutiny. Perhaps the main purpose of PMQs is to promote public engagement in politics and government policies, as opposed to providing a real scrutiny of government policies.
Parliamentary Debates are also another way of which scrutiny of the government occurs. Debates are the oldest form of scrutiny, and allow for a discussion of topical issues relevant to the interests of the United Kingdom. Similar to Prime Ministers Questions, debates often feature an exchange of attacks from opposing parties and rarely provide new outlooks on the issue at hand. As stated by Norton, ‘there is little evidence that opposition day debates have affected government actions: they are simply part of a partisan conflict in the chamber.’ As the ruling party dominates the House, their view usually dominates the Chamber and so the debates rarely provide any real scrutiny. However, they can be an effective way of engaging with topics of interest to the public and those of national concern. For example, Parliament debated Trump’s visit to the United Kingdom following a petition from the general public. Moments from the debate were widely spread on social media, and the public were able to see the sort of opinions and views held amongst Parliament. This brings this essay to another brief point- the importance of public opinion on scrutiny. Too often we find that issues at the receiving end of public backlash tend to be the focus of Parliamentary scrutiny of government policy. Whilst this is good in that public opinion is taken seriously, it is important to maintain a constant level of scrutiny for a wide range of policies and conduct.
Ultimately, whilst various methods of scrutiny exist, arguably none provide a wholly effective method of scrutinising both government policies and past conduct of administrations. Whilst the current methods of scrutiny may not be wholly satisfactory, it is anticipated that both Select Committees, PMQs and Debates will be play a larger rule in the scrutiny of the Brexit process. Following the outcome of Miller, the significance of Parliament was reinforced and their role in achieving in a successful and balanced Brexit emphasised. For example, Select Committees are tasked with reviewing the new Department for Exiting the European Union and ensuring the effectiveness of this new department. The EU Committee has also been following the Brexit negotiations and scrutinising the government’s plans for the UK’s withdrawal of the EU.
Although the ability for government to be scrutinised is an important feature of our democratic society, arguably, we should be wary about the consequences of demanding too much scrutiny, as this could possibly result in an overcautious political climate where government finds itself too afraid to pursue innovative ideas due to fear of criticism and backlash.