TELL:

Topic 3: Crown and Parliament

Part 2 - The House of Commons

This topic is very long and has been divided into three sections, which are on three different pages.

Section 1 - The Monarchy - click here to go to this page;

Section 2 - The House of Commons - you are currently on this page;

Section 3 - The House of Lords - click here to go to this page.

This page contains all the notes for this topic.

Handouts, acetates, dictated notes and things said in class are all shown.

Checklist of topic handouts

3/1 -

3/2

3/3

3/4

3/5

Common Questions

How well does the House of Commons scrutinise the actions of the executive?

What are the main functions of the House of Commons?

How have the powers of the House of Commons been reduced?

To what extent is the House of Commons a 'rubber stamp' for the actions of the executive?

Introduction

Within our examination of the functions and role of the House of Commons, we will look at –

the composition of the Commons;

what the Commons actually does;

how well it does it;

how discipline is maintained within the Commons;

any reforms which could be made to ensure it performs its duties more efficiently.

Before we begin, I will give you some very basic information about the House of Commons, and an explanation of some of the terminology we will be using from now on.

It is also important to appreciate that examiners are increasingly requiring candidates to be able to compare and contrast different political systems, and it is for this reason that I will now give you a comparison of the British Prime-Ministerial system and the American Presidential system.

HEADING: COMPARISON OF PRIME-MINISTERIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.

In the UK, the legislative assembly, the House of Commons, is not elected or appointed separately from the executive. The executive is subordinate and responsible to Parliament for its actions and policies. The Government remains in office only while it commands the confidence and support of the majority in Parliament, and the executive can be defeated in a vote of "no confidence".

In Britain, responsible government operates through a parliamentary system of government, meaning that the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons forms a government and members of the Government are both individually and collectively responsible to Parliament. In the parliamentary form the executive composes a Prime Minister or Premier (chief executive) and that official's Cabinet.

In the USA, Presidential government features a form of separation of power between the executive and the legislative branches. The two branches are independent and equal. The chief executive (President) is chosen independently of the legislature, holds office for a fixed term, and has broad powers not subject to the direct control of the legislature.

In the United States a written constitution provides for a separation of powers between the branches of government.

Before moving on to a more detailed examination of the work of the Commons, we will briefly consider an outline answer to a comparison of a Prime-Ministerial and a Presidential system.

HANDOUT 3/6 - CONSIDERATION OF COMMON SHORT-ANSWER QUESTIONS

In a parliamentary system the government governs in and through the legislature; in a presidential system the government governs separately from the legislature.

What criticisms can be levelled at the legislature in the UK?

In a parliamentary system the government are members of and responsible to, the legislature; in a presidential system the government are not members of or directly responsible to the legislature.

How are members of the Government responsible to the legislature in the UK?

There is a fusion of executive and legislative powers in a parliamentary system; separation of executive and legislative powers in a presidential system.

There has been considerable increase in Prime Ministerial power.

In what way has Prime-Ministerial power increased in recent years?

The Prime Minister is becoming more directly responsible to the public.

How and why has this occurred?

The executive has become much more dominant in recent years.

Again, for what reasons has this occurred?

HEADING: THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

The House of Commons has 659 members who are directly elected by UK adults over at 18 at General Elections – the last being on May 1^st 1997.

The main function of the Commons is to represent the citizens of the country and to scrutinise the actions of the executive (the Cabinet) which in the UK is derived from the Commons itself.

The function of the executive is to govern through the proposal of legislation. There is generally a consultation process when the government will often publish a Green Paper which outlines its proposals for a particular piece of legislation.

This is normally followed by the publication of a White Paper which comprises the detailed proposals for a new law or regulations.

At this stage, the appropriate Minister will instruct his Civil Servants to write the Bill – which is the proposed measure in written form.

The Bill will then be considered and examined by the House of Commons in a well established procedure.

If the Bill completes all of it’s Commons stages, it will then be subject to approval by the House of Lords. If the Lords approves the Bill it will be sent to the Monarch for signing and the Bill becomes an Act, and enforceable by the Courts.

We will now consider who actually sits in the Commons, and consider why this is subject to sometimes severe criticism.

HANDOUT 3/7 - MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

The House of Commons is a representative assembly in that it is freely elected and MPs are returned to defend and pursue the interests of constituents. However, it is not a representative assembly in being typical of the socio-economic population that elects it. The Members returned to the House are generally male, middle-class and white – not typical of the population profile as a whole. These characteristics have been marked throughout the twentieth century. The House has tended to become even more middle class in the years since 1945. Before 1945, and especially in the early years of the century, the Conservative ranks contained a significant number of upper and upper-middle class men of private means, while the parliamentary Labour party (the PLP) was notable for the number of MPs from manual-working backgrounds: they comprised a little over half of the PLP from 1922 to 1935 and before that had been in an overwhelming majority. Since 1945, the number of businesspeople on the Conservative benches has increased, as has the number of graduates, often journalists and lecturers and teachers, on the Labour benches.

Why has there been a difference between Labour and Conservative MPs?

The shift in the background of Conservative MPs since 1945 is reflected in education as well as occupation. In 1945, just over 83% of Conservative MPs had been educated at public schools - 27% at Eton. Almost two-thirds - 65% - had been to University, with half having gone to Oxford or Cambridge. Over the next thirty years, the percentage of those educated at public school showed a decline but not a dramatic one. Of the Conservative MPs elected in October 1974, almost 75% were products of public schools, 17% of them Eton. The percentage of university graduates showed little change: just under 68%, a 3% increase on the 1945 figure. Oxbridge graduates accounted for just under 48% of the total.

However, subsequent general elections - those from 1979 - have shown a marked change in educational background. Of Conservative MPs elected for the first time in 1979, only just over half had been to public school (13% to Eton) and just over one-third (36%) to Oxbridge. This trend was maintained in 1983. For the first time, less than half the new intake (47%) bad public school backgrounds (6% Eton); again only just over a third (35%) had been to Oxbridge. The percentage of those from public schools increased in 1987 - to 61% of the new intake - but receded to just over 55% in 1992. The proportion of old Etonians declined in each succeeding election. The new intake was displacing longer serving MPs with Eton and Oxbridge backgrounds. The percentage of public school educated MPs in 1992 was down to 62%. The percentage of old Etonians was down to 10%. University graduates constituted almost three-quarters of the party (73%), but those who had been to Oxbridge were only 45% of the total.

The changing patterns in education reflect a change in occupational background, with new Conservative MPs now being drawn as much from business backgrounds as the more traditional professional backgrounds. Within the business category, MPs are more likely to be drawn from the ranks of executives rather than from the ranks of directors.

On the Labour side, the notable change in educational background has been the rise in the number of graduates. In 1945, just over one-third of Labour MPs (34%) had been to University. By 1970, just over half of the PLP were University graduates. By 1983, the figure was 54% and in 1992 it had increased to 61%. Most of these were graduates of Universities other than Oxford and Cambridge. The percentage of Oxbridge-educated Labour MPs increased only marginally, from almost 15% in 1945 to just over 16% in 1992.

These figures reflect the growing middle-class nature of the PLP. The percentage of manual workers in the party declined in each successive Parliament until 1974, increased in 1979 and 1983, but then dropped back in 1987 and 1992. Only 17% of new Labour MPs in 1992 were drawn from manual backgrounds. Fewer than one in four of Labour MPs in the 1992 Parliament could claim any form of manual background. Increasingly Labour MPs were defined by white collar public sector employment, whether in education, politics or as officials in public sector unions; very small numbers of Labour candidates had any experience of either manual work or business.

Indeed, there is something of a convergence between Members on both sides in terms of education and background. Of new MPs elected to the House of Commons, the vast majority - whether Conservative or Labour - are University educated and a large proportion are not only drawn from some middle-class occupation but an occupation that is in the domain of politics or communication.

Of MPs elected for the first time in the 1997 general election, more than three out of every four were university educated. Of new Conservative MPs, 90% had been to university. Of the 178 new Labour MPs, 75% had a university education. For new Liberal Democrat MPs, the proportion was 74%. Of the new intake in 1997, teachers, journalists and political staffers were notable on the Labour benches and the last category - those who had worked in political positions such as advisers and researchers - were very much to the fore on the Conservative benches. Of the newly-elected Members, four out of every ten Conservatives, one in five Labour Members and one in three Liberal Democrats had previously been employed in political posts.

Why have a majority of new MPs been University-educated?

Account for the occupation-profile of the new Labour MPs.

Where there is a difference between the two sides is in terms of council experience and in terms of gender. Labour MPs are more likely to have served as local councillors. Of the new MPs elected in 1997, almost two-thirds of Labour MPs had served as councillors, compared to one-quarter of Conservative MPs. There are also many more women sitting on the Labour benches than on the Conservative (and Liberal Democrat) benches.

Women only became eligible to sit in the House in 1918. The number elected since then has been small. Between 1918 and 1974, the total number of women elected to the House was only 112. In the 1983 general election, twenty-three women were elected to the house, in 1987 the figure was forty-one, and in 1992 it was sixty, an all-time high. The Labour party in 1993 adopted a policy of all-women shortlists in a number of constituencies in order to boost the number of female Labour MPs. Though the policy was struck down by an employment tribunal in 1996 on the grounds that it breached sex discrimination legislation, it did not affect seats where female candidates had already been selected. As a result, a record number of female Labour MPs were elected in 1997: no less than 101, 64 of them elected for the first time – including our very own Darri Taylor. Though Conservative leaders encouraged local parties to adopt female candidates, very few did so. With a number of female Conservative MPs retiring in 1997, the result was a notable disparity between the two parties.

Why are there still relatively few women MPs?

Given that the Party has been led by a woman, account for the continuing male dominance within the Conservative Party.

The percentage of women MPs in the House of Commons in recent Parliaments remains low by international standards, but it is less marked after 1997 than before. The percentage of women MPs in the House is now 18%.

Whilst some progress may have been made towards the greater representation of women, the same cannot be said regarding ethnic minorities. The number of non-white MPs remains very small. For most of the twentieth century there were none at all. In 1987, four non-white MPs were elected. In 1992, the number increased to six -

five Labour and one Conservative - and reached an all-time high in 1997, when nine were elected, including the first Muslim MP and two Sikhs (unfortunately, the Muslim is currently suspended, pending an electoral fraud enquiry). Even so, the number represents only a little more than 1% of the membership of the House.

One reason for the persistence of white, male MPs is the length of time that MPs typically serve in the House. Some MPs sit for thirty or forty years – some seeming not to move or even breath in that time. The Father of the House of Commons (the longest continuously serving MP), Sir Edward Heath, was first elected in 1950. A typical Member sits for about twenty years. Even if parties are keen to replace existing MPs with candidates from a wider range of backgrounds, the opportunity to replace them does not necessarily come up very quickly. The length of service of legislators is a particular feature of the British House of Commons: MPs tend to serve as members longer than legislators in other comparable legislatures. Even in the 1997 general election, which - as a result of a massive swing to the Labour party - brought in a record number of new MPs (no less than 253), more than 60% of MPs had served in the previous Parliament. More than 30 MPs had been first elected to Parliament in 1970 or earlier.

Why do MPs in the UK serve such long periods in the Commons?

Members are paid an annual salary. In January 1998, an MP's salary was £43,086 – whilst this may seem a lot of money, it is modest in comparison with other countries. Ministers receive higher salaries but retain part of their salaries as MPs.

Since the 1960s, parliamentary facilities have also improved. In the mid-1960s, an MP was guaranteed only a locker in which to keep papers and received no allowance, either for hiring a secretary or even to cover the cost of telephone calls. In 1969 a secretarial allowance was introduced. That allowance has evolved into an office cost allowance, allowing an MP to hire one and sometimes two secretaries - as in the case or Robin Cook, sometimes secretaries do far more than type letters!

HEADING: THE FUNCTIONS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

The principal function of the House is often seen as being that of being involved in law-revision. It is, after all, classified as a legislature and the name means carrier, or giver, of law.

In practice, much of the time of the House is given over to business that has nothing directly to do with legislation. Question Time is now an established feature of the House. It is not part of the legislative process.

When the House debates the economy or the government's industrial policy, those debates again are not part of the formal legislative process.

Some of the most notable speeches made in the House in the 1990s - not least the resignation speech of Sir Geoffrey Howe in 1990 - attracted considerable media attention, but again had nothing to do with the legislative process.

The House has an important role to play in the legislative process, but it is clearly not its only role.

The principal functions of the House can be therefore grouped under four headings:

	legitimisation,
	recruitment,
	scrutiny and influence, and
	expression.

Several other functions can be identified but these can largely be subsumed under these four broad headings.

The following handouts are distributed in class and are given back after notes have been made from them:

HANDOUT 3/8 (R – 1) - FUNCTIONS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

NUMBER ONE: LEGITIMIZATION

Make notes on the information given below;

Be prepared to feed-back your information to other students.
Return this handout when you have finished your notes.

In Ye Olden Days, the primary purpose for which the representatives of the counties and boroughs (the communes) were first summoned was to assent to the King's demand for additional taxes. Subsequently, their assent also came to be necessary for legislation. The House has thus been, since its inception, a legitimising body. It fulfils what Robert Packenham has termed the function of "latent legitimisation". This derives from the fact that:

"…simply by meeting regularly and uninterruptedly, the legislature produces, among the relevant populace and elites, a wider and deeper sense of the government's moral right to rule than would otherwise have obtained".

Given that Parliament not only sits regularly but has done so without interruption since the seventeenth century, it is arguably a much stronger agent of latent legitimisation that many other legislatures. It would seem plausible to hypothesise that the function is weaker in a political system in which the legislature is a recent and conscious creation of resuscitation by the prevailing regime. In Britain, legitimisation may also be reinforced by the fact that members of the government are drawn from, and govern through, Parliament - ministers remaining and fulfilling functions as Members of Parliament.

The House also fulfils the task of manifest legitimisation, that is, the overt, conscious giving of assent. This encompasses not only the giving of assent to bills - and requests for supply - laid before the House but also the giving of assent to the government itself. The government depends upon the confidence of the House of Commons for its continuance in office. If the House withdraws its confidence, then by convention the government resigns or requests a dissolution.

The House proceeds on the basis of motions laid before it: for example, to give a bill a second reading or to express confidence in the government. By approving such motions, the House gives its assent. Members may vote on motions. The Speaker of the House asks those supporting the motion to say 'aye', those opposing to say 'no'. If no dissenting voices are heard, the motion is declared to be carried. If some MPs shout 'no' and persist then Members divide (that is, vote). A simple majority is all that is necessary. (Subject to two basic requirements: that at least forty MPs - a quorum - are shown by the division to be present and that, in voting on a closure motion, at least a hundred MPs have voted in favour.)

Members vote by trooping through two lobbies - the division lobbies - where their names are recorded. The result of the vote is then announced in the chamber. It is this accepted need for assent - for the House to confer legitimacy - that constitutes the basic power of the House in relation to the government.

Initially, the knights and burgesses summoned to the King's court were called to give assent, but with no recognition of any capacity to deny assent. Gradually, members began to realise that they could, as a body, deny assent to legislation. This formed the basis on which they could ensure the effective fulfilment of other functions.

It remains the basis of the power of the House of Commons. Without the assent of the House, no measure can become an Act of Parliament. The contemporary point of contention is the extent to which the House is prepared to use its power to deny assent. Critics contend that the effect of the growth of party and hence party cohesion has largely nullified the willingness of the House to employ it.

NUMBER TWO: RECRUITMENT

Ministers are normally drawn from, and remain within, Parliament. The situation is governed solely by convention. There is no legal requirement that a minister has to be an MP or peer.

The practice of appointing ministers from those who sit in Parliament derives from expediency or convenience. Historically, it was to the King's benefit to have his ministers in Parliament, where they could influence, lead and marshal support for the crown. It was to the benefit of Parliament to have ministers who could answer for their conduct. An attempt was made early in the eighteenth century to prevent ministers from sitting in Parliament, but the legislation was superseded by another law allowing the practice to continue.

The convention that ministers be drawn from and remain within Parliament - predominantly now, by convention, the House of Commons - is a strong one inasmuch as virtually all ministers are MPs or peers. It is extremely rare for a minister to be appointed who does not sit in either House and even rarer for that person to remain outside Parliament while in office: the person is either elevated to the peerage (nowadays the most used route) or found a safe seat to contest in a by-election. Occasionally, one of the Scottish law officers - the Solicitor General for Scotland - is appointed from the ranks of Scottish lawyers and remains outside Parliament (this happened in both the 1987 and 1992 Parliaments, for example), but it is the exception that proves the rule.

The relationship between the House and ministers is governed by convention. Under the convention of individual ministerial responsibility, ministers are answerable to the House for their own conduct and that of their particular departments. Under the convention of collective ministerial responsibility, the Cabinet is responsible to the House for government policy as a whole. It is this latter convention that requires a request for a dissolution or the resignation of the government in the event of the House passing a motion of no confidence in the government.

The fact that ministers remain in Parliament clearly has a number of advantages to government. Things have not changed that much from earlier centuries in that ministers can use their positions to lead and marshal their supporters. Ministers themselves add notably to the voting strength of the government, the so-called 'payroll vote' in the House. In 1996, just over eighty ministers served in the Commons and just over twenty in the Lords. With ministers' unpaid helpers - parliamentary private secretaries - added to the number, the number swelled to over a hundred. The government thus has a sizeable guaranteed vote to begin with. Party loyalty - and ambition for office - usually ensures that the votes of back-benchers follow those of ministers.

The convention that ministers be drawn from the ranks of parliamentarians has certain advantages for Parliament. It ensures that members are close to ministers, both formally and informally. Ministers can be questioned on the floor of the House; they can be waylaid for private conversations and pleadings by Members in the corridors and division lobbies of the House. The fact that they remain as Members of the House means they retain some affinity with other Members. MPs elevated to ministerial office still retain their constituency duties.

Above all, though, the convention renders the House of Commons powerful as a recruiting agent. The route to ministerial office is through Parliament. In some other systems, the legislature is but one route to the top. In the USA, for example, there are multiple routes: Cabinet ministers - and presidents - can be drawn from the ranks of business executives, academics, state governors, army officers and lawyers. The US Congress enjoys no monopoly on recruitment. In the UK, Parliament does have such a monopoly. Parliament is thus the exclusive route for those intending to reach the top of the political ladder. Those aspiring to ministerial office thus have to seek election to the House of Commons (or hope - usually in vain for a peerage) and have to make their mark in the House.

The House serves also as an important testing ground for potential ministers and, indeed, for those on the ministerial ladder. A poor performance at the dispatch box can harm a minister's chances of further promotion. A consistently poor performance can result in the minister losing office.

NUMBER THREE: SCRUTINY AND INFLUENCE

Scrutiny and influence are essentially linked functions. The House subjects both the measures and the actions of government to scrutiny. It does so through various means: debate, questioning and committee deliberations. If it does not like what is before it, it can influence the bill or the policy under consideration. It may influence solely by the force of argument. It may influence by threatening to deny assent (that is, by threatening to defeat the government). Ultimately, it may actually refuse its assent, denying the government a majority in the division lobbies.

These two functions are central to the activity of the House, and absorb most of its time. Government business enjoys precedence on most days. The House spends most of its time discussing legislation and the policy and actions of ministers. Though the growth of party has ensured that government is normally assured a majority in divisions, the party system helps ensure that government is subject to critical scrutiny from opposition parties in the House. The procedures of the House are premised on the existence of two principal parties, with each having the opportunity to be heard. Membership of all committees of the House replicates party strength on the floor of the House, thus ensuring the opposition has an opportunity to offer critical comments and to force government to respond at all stages of the parliamentary process.

Furthermore, scrutiny and influence may also take place outside, or despite, the context of party. MPs sit for particular constituencies. Though elected on a party label, they are none the less expected to ensure that government policy does not damage constituency interests. They may also be influenced by moral and religious views that ensure they pay careful attention to bills and government policies that run counter to their personal convictions.

However, the extent to which the House actually fulfils these functions is a matter of dispute. Critics contend that the government stranglehold, via its party majority, ensures that the House is denied the means for sustained and effective scrutiny, and that inasmuch as it may exert some limited scrutiny, that scrutiny is not matched by the capacity to influence government. MPs may consider and find fault with a particular measure, but not then prove willing to use their power to amend or reject it.

NUMBER FOUR: EXPRESSION

The House serves not one, but several expressive functions. Members serve to express the particular views and demands of constituents. An individual constituent or a group of constituents may be adversely affected by some particular policy or by the actions of some public officials. Constituents may feel that a particular policy is bad for the constituency or for the country. Contacting the local MP will usually result in the MP passing on the views to the relevant minister and may even result in the Member raising the issue on the floor of the House. The pursuit of such cases by MPs ensures that they are heard and considered by ministers.

MPs also express the views of different groups in society as a whole. A range of issues that do not fall within the scope of party politics are taken up and pursued by private Members. MPs may express the views of organised interests, such as particular industries or occupations. They may express the views of different sectors of society, such as the elderly. Many will give voice to the concerns of particular charitable, religious or moral groups. Some MPs press, for example, for reform of the laws governing abortion, some want to liberalise the laws concerning homosexuality, some want to ban hunting.

These issues can be pursued by MPs through a number of parliamentary procedures. In some cases, Members table amendments to government bills. Another route is through the use of private Members' bills. Though the more contentious the issue, the less likely the bill is to be passed, the debate on the bill serves an important function: it allows the different views to be expressed in an authoritative public forum, heard by the relevant minister and open to coverage by the mass media.

MPs, then, serve to express the views of constituents and different groups to the House and to government. MPs may also serve to express the views of the House and of government to constituents and organised groups. The House may reach a decision on a particular topic. Members may then fulfil an important role in explaining why that decision was taken.

Members individually may explain decisions to constituents. Select committees of the House may, in effect, explain particular policies through their reports which are read not just by government but by groups with a particular interest in the committee's area of inquiry.

The House thus has a tremendous potential to serve several expressive functions. The extent to which it does so is a matter of considerable debate. MPs have limited time and resources to pursue all the matters brought to their attention. The attention given to their activities by the media and by government may be slight. Many groups may bypass Parliament in order to express their views directly to ministers. Furthermore, it is argued, the views expressed by MPs on behalf of others are drowned out by the noise of party battle. By limiting the resources of the House and by keeping information to itself, the Government has limited the capacity of the House to arm itself with the knowledge necessary to raise support for public policies.

HANDOUT 3/8 - FUNCTIONS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS: SOME QUESTIONS

Refer to the notes made on each of the four areas, and answer the following questions:

Function 1 – Legitimisation:

Why is the legitimising function of the legislature reinforced in the UK?
What occurs if the Commons withdraws its support for the Government?
When did this last occur, and what was the eventual outcome?
Explain the voting procedure in the Commons.

Function 2 – Recruitment:

Explain the conventions of individual ministerial responsibility and collective ministerial responsibility.

What advantages does the Government enjoy as a result of Ministers being part of Parliament?

Function 3 – Scrutiny and Influence:

How does the Commons scrutinise Government actions?

In what other ways might Government actions come under scrutiny?

In what ways has this function of the Commons been eroded in recent years?

Function 4 – Expression:

In what ways might views or grievances be expressed in the Commons?

How has this function been eroded in recent years?

EVALUATION OF QUESTION TIME

ADVANTAGES

Directly confrontational (Government v Opposition);
Attracts media attention;
Easy to follow;
Can reveal gaps in Government knowledge;
Supplementary questions can sometimes surprise Ministers.

DISADVANTAGES

Time not adequate for many questions.
Ministers can avoid giving straight answers.
Prime Minister’s Question Time most often degenerates into a party battle;
Mainly an opportunity for the PM to shine – not the Opposition Leader;
MPs who want more detail prefer written questions which get written answers.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE DEPARTMENTAL SELECT COMMITTEES

	They have added considerably to the store of knowledge of the House.
	They provide an important means for specialisation by Members.
	They serve an important expressive function.
	By calling witnesses from outside groups, they allow those groups to get their views on the public record.
	The evidence from witnesses is published.
	The committees may take up the cases espoused by some of the groups, ensuring that the issue is brought on to the political agenda.
	The reports from the committees are read and digested by the groups, thus providing the committees with the potential to serve as important agents for mobilising support.

	The Committees have limited powers and limited resources.
	The number of reports they issue massively exceeds the capacity of the House to debate them.
	Most reports therefore go unread or even mentioned by most MPs.
	Government is under no obligation to act on recommendations of Committees, although it does have to provide a written response.

Handout 3/9 - THE HOUSE OF COMMONS: SCRUTINY & INFLUENCE

By far the most important functions of the House of Commons, the powers of scrutiny and influence have been changed and adapted over the years. For example, a recent development has been the reduction in the number of Prime Minister’s Question-Time sessions from twice-weekly to only once, albeit in a half-hour format. The various powers and functions can be grouped under two headings: legislation and executive actions.

SCRUTINY AND INFLUENCE - ONE: LEGISLATION

As we have seen, when a Bill is presented to Parliament, it has to pass through a number of formal stages on its way to the Statute Book. About one-third of the time of the House is taken up by the debating of Government Bills; Private Members’ Bills occupy about 5% of the time of the House.

Debates on Bills follow a standard pattern: the Minister responsible for the Bill opens the debate, explaining the provisions of the Bill and justifying its introduction. The relevant Shadow Minister then makes a speech from the Opposition front-bench, outlining the Opposition’s stance on the Bill. Backbench MPs from both sides of the House are then called alternately and the debate is wound up with further speeches from the Opposition and Government front-benches.

Debates, though unpredictable in content, are generally predictable in outcome: only three times this century has the government lost a vote on second reading (in 1924, 1977 and 1986). Speeches on occasion may influence some votes, even whole debates, but they are exceptional. A government sometimes loses the argument but not usually the vote.

Why do Governments seldom lose votes on the floor of the Commons?

The Committee Stage.

The purpose of the committee is to make a Bill "more generally acceptable" through scrutinising it and, if necessary, amending it (It cannot reject it or make any amendment that runs counter to the principle of the bill which has been approved by the House on second reading). Each Bill is considered clause by clause, the committee discussing and deciding on any amendments tabled to a clause before approving (or rejecting) the motion "that the clause stand part of the bill".

Committee stage constitutes the most criticised stage of the legislative process. Discussion in committee will often follow the adversarial lines adopted in the second reading debate. Traditionally, a great deal of time has been taken up with the earlier and more controversial clauses of a bill. If debate on the early clauses drags on, the government may resort to a timetable (guillotine) motion. This can result in later clauses getting little or no attention. Each committee resembles the Commons in miniature, with a minister and a whip appointed on the government side, and the Minister’s opposite number and a whip serving on the opposition side. Both sides face one another and the whips operate to marshal their members. Though cross-voting by government back-benchers can result in some defeats for the government, such occurrences are rare. The government is able to call on its supporters who constitute not only a majority but often a fairly silent majority on the committee. In order not to delay proceedings, government back-benchers are encouraged to keep as quiet as possible. In consequence, service on standing committees is often not popular, government back-benchers treating it as a chore and using the opportunity to read and sometimes write replies to correspondence!

Because of criticism of the whole process, the two principal parties in the House agreed in 1994 to a voluntary timetabling of bills. This meant that each bill was subject to an agreed timetable, thus avoiding the need for a guillotine to be introduced. There is, as we shall see, pressure for such timetabling to be a compulsory feature of the legislative process.

List three advantages and three disadvantages of the Committee Stage.

Private Members' Bills are treated differently, primarily in terms of timetabling. They have to go through all the normal stages, but time for their consideration on the floor of the House is extremely limited. Each session a ballot is held, and the names of twenty private Members drawn. They are then entitled to introduce bills during the Fridays allocated to such bills, but only about the top half-dozen are likely to achieve full debates.

List three examples of significant Private Members’ Bills.

Bills constitute primary legislation. They often contain powers for regulations to be made under their authority once enacted. These regulations - known as delegated legislation - may be made subject to parliamentary approval. (Under the affirmative resolution procedure, the regulation must be approved by Parliament in order to come into force; under the negative resolution procedure it comes into force unless Parliament disapproves it). Some regulations, though, only have to be laid before the House and others do not even have to be laid.

Given the growth of delegated legislation in post-war years, the House has sought to undertake scrutiny of it. Detailed, and essentially technical, scrutiny is undertaken by a Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. However, there is no requirement that the government has to wait for the committee to report on a regulation before bringing it before the House for approval, and on occasion - though not frequently - the government will seek approval before a regulation has been considered by the committee. Time for debate is also extremely limited and much delegated legislation is hived off for discussion in a standing committee on delegated legislation. Similar procedures are adopted for draft European Union legislation: it is considered by a committee and, if recommended for debate, is discussed by one of two European standing committees.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of delegated legislation?

SCRUTINY AND INFLUENCE - TWO: EXECUTIVE ACTIONS

There are various means employed to scrutinise and to influence the actions of government. These same means can be, and usually are employed by MPs to express the views of constituents and different interests in society. The means essentially are those available on the floor of the House (debates and Question Time); those available on the committee corridor (select committees); and those available off the floor of the House (early day motions, correspondence, the parliamentary commissioner for administration, party committees and all-party groups). Some individually are of limited use. It is their use in combination that can be effective in influencing government.

Debates and Question Time

Most of the time of the House is taken up debating or questioning the actions of government. Debates take different forms. They can be on a substantive motion (for example, congratulating or condemning the policy of the government on a particular issue) or, in order to allow wide-ranging discussion (especially on a topic on which the government may have no fixed position), on an adjournment motion ("That this House do now adjourn"). For example, prior to the Gulf War at the beginning of 1991, the situation in the Gulf was debated on an adjournment motion. After military action had begun, the House debated a substantive motion approving the action. Adjournment debates under this heading can be described as full-scale adjournment debates. They are distinct from the half-hour adjournment debates which take place at the end of every sitting of the House. These half-hour debates take the form of a back-bencher raising a particular issue and the relevant minister then responding. After exactly half an hour, the debate concludes and the House adjourns.

There are twenty days each year which are designated as opposition debating days. On seventeen of these twenty days, the motion (or motions - a day's debate can be split into two) is chosen by the leader of the opposition. On the remaining three days, the topic is chosen by the leader of the third largest party in the House (the Liberal Democrats), though at least one day is usually given over to the other minor parties.

These back-benchers' occasions provide opportunities to raise essentially non-partisan issues, especially those of concern to constituents. Though such debates are poorly attended, they allow Members to put an issue on the public record and gain a response from government. Most debates are poorly attended, as the outcome (a Government victory) is for the most part assured. On most days, MPs addressing the House do so to rows of empty green benches.

What is the purpose of holding debates? What functions do they perform?

Question-Time (to Ministers in addition to the Prime Minister).

Question Time takes place on four days of the week - Monday to Thursday - when the House is sitting. It starts shortly after 2.30 p.m. (some minor business is transacted - announcements from the Speaker, certain non-debatable motions concerning private legislation - before it gets under way) and it concludes at 3.30 p.m.

Question Time itself is of relatively recent origin and a dedicated slot for Prime Minister's questions is of even more recent origin, dating from July 1961. From 1961 to 1997, the Prime Minister answered questions for fifteen minutes on two days of the week. In May 1997, the new Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, changed the procedure, answering questions for thirty minutes once a week.

Why did Tony Blair change the procedure for Question Time?

The practice of asking questions is popular with MPs and demand to ask questions exceeds the time available. Members are thus restricted in the number they can put on the order paper: no more than eight in every ten sitting days and no more than two on any one day. Questions must be precisely that - that is, questions (statements and expressions of opinion are inadmissible) - and each must be on a matter for which the minister has responsibility. There is also an extensive list of topics (including arms sales, budgetary forecasts, and purchasing contracts) on which government will not answer questions.

Ministers answer questions on a rota basis, most ministries coming up on the rota every four weeks. Some of the smaller ministries have slots in Question Time from 3.10 p.m. onwards. All questions tabled by Members used to be printed on the order paper, a practice that was costly and largely pointless. The number tabled often ran into three figures but the number that were actually answered in the time available was usually fewer than twenty. Following changes approved by the House in 1990, only the top thirty or so - chosen in advance by random selection - are now printed.

Question Time is not the only opportunity given to MPs to put questions to ministers. Members can also table questions for written answer. The questions, along with ministers' answers, are published in Hansard, the official record of parliamentary proceedings. There is no limit on the number of questions that an MP can table - some table several hundred in a session - and they can be answered at greater length than is possible during Question Time.

Question Time itself remains an important opportunity for back-benchers to raise issues of concern to constituents and to question ministers on differing aspects of their policies and intentions. However, it has become increasingly adversarial in nature, with opposition front-benchers participating regularly - a practice that has developed over the past thirty years - and with questions and supplementaries often being partisan in content. Some MPs view the proceedings, especially Prime Minister's Question Time, as a farce. However, it remains an occasion for keeping ministers on their toes and it ensures that a whole range of issues are brought to the attention of ministers. It also ensures that much material is put on the public record that would not otherwise be available.

How has the style of Prime Minister’s differed at Question Time?

PRIME MINISTER’S QUESTION TIME

We are now going to watch an example of the proceedings in Prime Minister’s Question Time.

Look out for two things: the procedures involved, and the types of questions which are asked. Yes, you’ve guessed it, make notes on these areas below:
AN EVALUATION OF QUESTION-TIME

ADVANTAGES

DISADVANTAGES

The Departmental Select Committees

The number of Select Committees has grown over the years and some of the most important work of the Commons is performed by them – not as everyone thinks, on the floor of the House.

Most committees have eleven members and are there to "examine the expenditure, administration and policy" of the department or departments it covers and of associated public bodies. The chairmanships of the committees are shared between the parties though the committee members are responsible for electing one of their own number from the relevant party to the chair. This power vested in committee members has variously resulted in the election of independent-minded chairmen who have been thorns in the flesh of government ministers: for example, in the 1992 Parliament, Sir Malcolm Thornton (education) and, from 1992 until his death in 1993, Robert Adley (transport), both critics of government policy in the areas covered by their committees.

Each committee has control of its own agenda and decides what to investigate. Unlike standing committees, they have power to take evidence and much of their time is spent questioning witnesses.

Unlike standing committees, the committees are not arranged in adversarial format, government supporters facing opposition MPs, but instead sit in a horseshoe shape, MPs sitting around the horseshoe - not necessarily grouped according to party - with the witness or witnesses seated in the gap of the horseshoe.

Some committees hold long-term inquiries. Some go for short-term inquiries and some adopt a mixture of the two approaches. Some will also summon senior ministers for a single session just to review present policy and not as part of a continuing inquiry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, appears each year before the Treasury Committee for a wide-ranging session on economic policy. Though committees cannot force ministers to attend, the attendance of the appropriate minister is normally easily arranged.

So, too, is the attendance of civil servants, though they cannot divulge information on advice offered to ministers or express opinions on policy: that is left to ministers. Attendance by ministers and civil servants before committees is regular and frequent, though most witnesses called by committees represent outside bodies.

At the conclusion of an inquiry, a committee draws up a report. The report is normally drafted by the committee clerk - a full-time officer of the House - under the guidance of the chairman. It is then discussed in private session by the committee. Amendments are variously made, though it is relatively rare for committees to divide along party lines. Once agreed, the report is published.

Most reports include recommendations for government action. A proportion, but far from all, of the recommendations are accepted by government.

	What purposes do the Committees serve?
	What are the advantages and disadvantages of this form of scrutiny?

OTHER FORMS OF SCRUTINY AND INFLUENCE

Party Committees

An important unofficial means of scrutinising and influencing government is through party committees. These are unofficial in that they are committees of the parliamentary parties and not officially constituted committees of the House.

Each parliamentary party has some form of organisation, usually with weekly meetings of the parliamentary party. The Conservatives and Labour - have a sufficient number of members to sustain a series of committees.

Conservative committees have no fixed membership - any Conservative MP can attend a meeting - and a large attendance can signal to the whips that there may be a problem with a particular issue. Most meetings will attract a handful of Members -sometimes half a dozen or even less - but if a contentious issue is discussed it can swell to three figures. Meetings are confidential and provide MPs with a means of expressing their views fully to their leaders, usually through the whips: a whip normally attends each meeting. Any disquiet is reported to the chief whip and relevant frontbencher. They constitute important channels of influence: a Conservative minister may have second thoughts if a particular policy encounters opposition in the relevant party committee. The committees also provide important means of specialisation for back-benchers and being elected to officership of a committee is seen as a good means of achieving experience and getting noticed for elevation to the front bench.

All-Party Groups

All-party groups, like party committees, are not formally constituted committees of the House. They are formed on a cross-party basis, with officerships being shared among members of different parties. There are just under one hundred such groups, each formed to consider a particular topic. The subjects covered by these groups are diverse, including industrial safety, children, social science, the Boys Brigade and AIDS. Some exist in name only. Others are active in discussing and promoting a particular cause, some pressing the government for action. Among the more influential are the disablement group, the long-established parliamentary and scientific committee, and more recently the football group. The all-party football group (with over a hundred members) has been active in influencing policy on such issues as safety in sports. Note that Tony Blair appointed former Conservative MP David Mellor to the chairmanship of a new "Football Taskforce".

After reading through this handout, answer the following questions (in your files):

(a) Why are debates generally predictable in outcome?

(b) Briefly explain the Committee stage of the legislative process.

"A wise leader of the Opposition would abandon Prime-Minister’s Question-Time". Briefly outline two arguments for and two arguments against this view.

Handout 3/10 - THE HOUSE OF COMMONS: THE "NOLAN COMMITTEE" AND LOBBYING

The Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Note firstly, that this Committee is now called the Neill Committee, under the Chairmanship of Lord Neill.

In 1994, the activities of two Conservative backbench MPs – David Tredinnick and Graham Riddick – in accepting money in return for asking questions to Ministers ("Cash for Questions") prompted John Major to set up the Nolan Committee into public standards. Prior to the activities of these two MPs, there had been serious questions raised over the activities of MPs and their financial links to outside sources. Although Parliament established a voluntary Register of Members Interests in 1975, there were many unrecorded examples of MPs receiving gifts, payments or commissions for raising matters appropriate to their particular interests.

The Report published by the Nolan Committee recommended:

The establishment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards – now implemented under the Chairmanship of Sir Gorden Downey.
The Register of MPs interests should be tightened up.
MPs should not work for lobby firms that had more than one client.
MPs should disclose outside earnings relating to their parliamentary work (implemented 1995).

The "Cash For Questions" affair led to the spotlight being focussed upon the lobbying activities that some MPs were becoming increasingly involved in.

We are now going to watch a video which explains the issues surrounding lobbying of MPs. Again, you have some questions and issues to focus upon.

	LOBBYING: CONSIDERATION OF VIDEO: "A WORD IN THE RIGHT EAR"
	Answer the questions below:
	1 What are the demonstrators complaining about at the beginning of the video?

2 What was the name of the lobbyist at the centre of the "Cash For Questions" row, and what was his "style" of lobbying?

3 Who else do lobbyists target?

4 What is stated as the aim of lobbying?

5 What was the aim of the lobbyists at the Conservative Party Conference and what was the practical outcome of their efforts?

6 Who did the lobbyists target in their campaign against privatisation of the Post-Office?

7 What other strategies were adopted by the lobbyists?

8 What was the final outcome of the campaign?

9 Why is it stated that lobbying is an essential element of the political process?

10 How do charities "help" MPs (at the same time lobbying them)?

11 Why might MPs not be the best people for lobbyists to target?

12 The programme was made in the Autumn of 1996 – before the General Election. What was new about that year’s Labour Party Conference?

You won’t get the answer to this one from the video! Overall, in your view, is lobbying a cause for concern? Give reasons for your answers.

We are now going to consider one of the main ways in which discipline is maintained in the House of Commons – namely the "whipping" system.

HANDOUT 3/11 – "THE PARLIAMENTARY WHIPPING SYSTEM".

HANDOUT REQUIRES VIDEO ON WHIPS; ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS GIVEN BELOW:

What three methods are Tory Whips said to operate?

[Argument, threat and promise].

What is the Tory Whip’s office known as, and which famous politician rose through their ranks

in the 1980s?

["The Nursery", John Major].

Who was the Tory’s most famous Whip and what was his nickname?

[Tristan Garel-Jones, "The Prince of Darkness"].

How is the Labour Whip’s office organised?

[Based on regional responsibility, areas known as "flocks"].

What are "the usual channels"?

[Go-Betweens between two major parties which organise the Commons business etc].

How do the Whips try and ensure that their party comes across well during debates?

[try and ensure compliant speakers, write "interventions" for MPs to say].

What is the "Black Book" and what does it contain?

[Tory record of MPs, contains runmours and gossip about MPs].

What role do the whips play in the honours system and what methods are used by them to

ensure that an MP votes they way they want them to?

[Chief Whip recommends honours according to regions, trips abroad, Committees, becoming "friendly" with people].

Explain the Tory’s "shit-list", and which famous ex-chancellor would have found his way onto

It, and why?

[List of MPs who would not vote with party, Norman Lamont, voted against government on Maastricht debate without telling government beforehand].

Handout 3/11: THE PARLIAMENTARY "WHIPPING" SYSTEM

The quote above from the Right Honourable Cecil Parkinson (appointed Chairman of the Conservative Party by William Hague) sums up the role which is often ascribed to the whips within the political parties. The whip’s job is to organise each party in Parliament and enforce party loyalty on the backbenches. The whip’s offices consist of a Chief-Whip, who is the main adviser to the leader and a number of Deputy-Whips.

So, what do they do, like?

The Whip’s main role is administrative – producing a weekly outline of Parliamentary business which indicates the degree of importance attached by the party to the various items on the Parliamentary agenda, and outlines forthcoming business on Parliamentary Committees and Party Committees. An MPs attendance is indicated by the number of lines under each item. Minor items are underlined once (we couldn’t give a monkey’s whether you turn up); important items are underlined twice (don’t miss too many of these, or else…); vital items are underlined three times (miss this and we tell "The Sun" about that small boy you were with the other day – whether its true or not). This is called a three line whip, and an MP misses it at his/her peril.

If an MP does wish to miss a vote, then he must find a member of the opposite party who also wishes to stay away – and they will thus cancel each other out. This is known as "pairing" and requires the consent of the Chief Whip.

The whips also act as a line of communication between the backbenchers and the leader of the party. The whips advise the leaders on what the party will or will not stand for and offer advice on how to head-off backbench rebellions.

Whips also act as persuaders and attempt to persuade MPs to support the party line. Whips may entice MPs with offers of advancement up the ministerial ladder if they support the party or use threats against rebel MPs.

The withdrawal of the Whip simply means that an MP is not sent the documentary whip, but in practical terms, it means that an MP has been expelled from the Party.

When was the Whip last withdrawn from MPs, and over what?

What was the intended effect, and what was the actual effect?

We are now going to bring this information on the Commons up-to-date, and consider what criticisms are still levelled at the Commons and what changes and developments have occurred recently.

HEADING: THE HOUSE OF COMMONS – THE MOMENTUM FOR REFORM

DICTATE: There are three principal approaches to reform of the House of Commons. Each derives from a particular perception of the role of the Commons in the political system.

OPTION 1: Radical Change.

The radical approach wants to see the House of Commons as a policy-making legislature. To achieve this, the radical not only supports major reform within the institution but also wants major reform of the constitution in order to change fundamentally the relationship between Parliament and government. The most extreme form of this view advocates a separation of powers, with the executive elected separately from the House of Commons.

OPTION 2: Gradual Reform.

This approach wants to strengthen the House of Commons as a policy-influencing body, the onus for policy-making resting with government but with the House of Commons having the opportunity to consider policy proposals in detail and to influence their content. Reformers thus favour structural and procedural changes within the House that will facilitate the fulfilment of this particular role. Reformers thus welcome the changes made in recent years, especially the emphasis on committees, and want to see them taken further.

OPTION 3: Minimalist.

This approach largely opposes change. The minimalist stresses the importance of the chamber as the place where the great issues of the day are debated. Committees and greater specialisation detract from the fulfilment of this historic role, allowing MPs to get bogged down in the detail rather than the principle of what is proposed by government. Providing MPs with offices takes them away from the chamber. Though not quite envisaging a House with little or no policy effect, advocates of this approach see the role of the House as one of supporting government.

A CRITIQUE.

Parliament is a multi-faceted organisation with two primary purposes: legislation and scrutiny. Given the range of its powers and responsibilities, can it be said that Parliament is effective?

Parliament has two main powers: to hold the executive in Britain to account, and to be free to pass effective, workable legislation. The House of Commons is a powerful legislative chamber, but its powers are limited by the existence of party government which restricts its abilities to scrutinise, represent and criticise. Critics of the Commons argue that it has little more than a formal role in the formation of policy, and that its power is very limited.

Handout 3/12: THE CHANGING FACE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS: RECENT CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS

The House has seen major changes in recent years. A number have served to reinforce its capacity to fulfil its various functions. Other changes - largely external to Parliament - have challenged its capacity to influence government and public policy. We can therefore divide recent developments into two areas as follows:

REINFORCEMENTS

More independent behaviour

Before 1970, party voting was almost total in the division lobbies. No post-war government had lost a vote because some of its own supporters had voted with opposition parties. Since 1970, MPs have been relatively more independent in their voting behaviour. Cohesion remains the norm, but dissension is no longer so exceptional. Government cannot always take its majority for granted, although this is obviously dependent upon the size of that majority.

This greater willingness amongst MPs to vote against their own side began in the 1970s, but continued throughout the Thatcherite 1980s. However, the impact of such dissidence was different. Because of the size of the government's overall majorities, especially in the period from 1983 to 1992, cross-voting was less obvious and had less effect: most dissension could be absorbed by the government's large majority. However, not all could; there were occasional defeats - notably but not only on the second reading of the Shops Bill in 1986 - and there were occasions when government backtracked under the threat of defeat.

The return of a government with a relatively small overall majority in 1992 highlighted again the capacity of a small number of government back-benchers to influence the outcome of votes. The government ran into particular difficulty on its policies on pit closures and ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. Analysis of dissent within the ranks of the parliamentary Labour party also showed that a Labour government could expect problems from its own back-benchers, and at the end of 1997, 43 Labour Backbenchers voted against the Government’s proposals to cut benefits to the disabled.

More professional

The House has become more professional, with a shift of emphasis from the floor of the House to the use of committees for detailed scrutiny of government.

The most important structural change to take place has been the creation of the departmental select committees, which we have already considered. They have been supplemented by a number of other structural and procedural changes. The House in the 1980s introduced new structures for its own internal administration including new structures for auditing government spending. The National Audit Office (NAO) was established in 1983, and examines the expenditure of Government Departments.

Further changes have taken place in the 1990s. The 1992-7 Parliament saw the appointment of new committees on deregulation and on standards and privileges. A statutory committee for the security services, comprising senior parliamentarians, was also established. New powers were given to the Scottish Grand Committee, which discusses matters affecting Scotland, to question ministers other than Scottish Office ministers.

At the same time as committees are becoming central mechanisms of scrutiny, so less time is being devoted to activities on the floor of the House. In 1992 a special committee set up by the House (the Jopling Committee) recommended that the hours of sitting be reformed, with fewer late-night sittings, fewer Friday sittings and with morning sittings taking place on Wednesdays. The implementation of these reforms in 1994 provided a more rational timetable for meetings and reduced the pressure on the floor.

These various changes in themselves may not appear to affect significantly the relationship between the House and government but in combination they have changed the nature of the House as a body of scrutiny.

More open and accessible

The House is now more open in that more citizens can see what is happening. Televised coverage quickly established itself and is now an accepted feature of parliamentary life.

MPs are also increasingly active in fulfilling their expressive functions. As we have seen, constituents make greater use of their MPs, writing to them on an unprecedented scale. Pressure groups also make greater use of MPs. Since 1979, pressure groups have, in effect, 'discovered' Parliament. Government has adopted something of an arm's length relationship with many groups, especially peak sectional groups. Groups have therefore turned their attention toward Parliament, and in the Commons, the departmental select committees provide a focus for their attention.

CHALLENGES

Centralisation of power

Some critics have identified a process of power centralisation in government as limiting Parliament's capacity to influence government. Some have pointed to the more recent creation of executive agencies within departments. These agencies have semi-autonomous status and the lines of answerability to Parliament are not clearly established. Ministers do not answer parliamentary questions about their activities. Instead, such questions are passed to the chief executive concerned who then replies directly to the MP. (As a result of parliamentary pressure, these replies are now published in Hansard.) This development has important implications for the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility and hence for the relationship of government to Parliament.

Membership of the European Union (EU)

This has had the effect of moving policy-making competence in certain sectors from national institutions to the institutions of the Union. In 1972, Parliament passed the European Communities Act. This gave the force of law not only to existing EU legislation but also to all future EU legislation. Consequently, when European law is promulgated by the EU Commission and approved by the Council of Ministers it has binding applicability in the UK. The assent of Parliament is not required. It has been given in advance under the terms of the 1972 Act. Membership of the EU thus has significant implications for the legitimising function of Parliament.

The House has sought to meet the challenge of EU membership by the appointment of a committee that scrutinises all draft European law, prior to it going to the Council of Ministers, and identifies those measures which have political or legal significance. If the committee identifies an important proposal which it believes should be considered by the House, that proposal is now referred for debate in one of two European standing committees. In the committee, the relevant minister can be questioned for up to one hour about the proposal.

Though the House has some mechanism for scrutinising draft European legislation, the only means by which the House can actually affect the outcome of the European legislative process is by persuading the relevant minister to take a particular stance in the Council of Ministers. The House itself - in common with other national legislatures - has no formal standing in the process. Even if the minister accepts the point made by the House, that minister may be outvoted in the Council of Ministers if qualified majority voting (QMV) is employed. The more policy sectors that are transferred to the competence of the EU, as occurred under the 1987 Single European Act and the 1993 Treaty on European Union, the less the formal power of the House of Commons to determine outcomes of public policy.

Answers to questions on Handout 3/12:

What general criticisms about the Commons are made at the beginning of the programme?

[Executive much more powerful, Bills incomprehensible, ineffective scrutiny, Government bends rules to suit itself].

Part One: "Ducking and Diving"

What are "patsy questions" and what is their purpose?

[Questions to Ministers deliberately attempting to make them look good and benefit both the Minister and the questioner. Also wastes time during Question-Time].

What answers do Ministers sometimes give in order to avoid difficult situations?

[This information is not held centrally;

National security;

Commercial confidentiality;

No longer responsible due to function being taken by a QUANGO;

Answer will cost too much to collate].

Part Two: "Going for their weak spot".

What is the function of the Whip sitting on the frontbenches?

[Noting who is helpful/unhelpful]

Explain what became known as "The Winterton Rule" and the reasons why it was implemented.

[Nick Winterton was a troublesome Tory backbencher who was Chairman of the Select Committee on Health. He was punished for dissent by the Government creating a rule that no MP could sit on the same Committee for three consecutive Parliaments].

Part Three: "Fixing the Ref".

What allegations are made regarding the Government’s relationship with the Civil Service?

[Civil Servants are increasingly asked to do "political" things such as write speeches for party conferences. Robert Armstrong effectively stated that Civil Servants should support their Ministers and do what is appropriate to this at all times].

END OF PART ONE OF PROGRAMME

How can the Government avoid effective scrutiny of legislation?

[Legislation is increasingly "sketchy" – "Skeleton Bills", use of regulations which can only be rejected in full or accepted in full by the Commons/Lords].

Part Four: "Piling on the pressure"

What criticisms are made regarding recent legislative practice?

[Far too many Bills, not enough time to deal with them, Government increasingly uses the guillotine].

Part Five: "Fighting dirty"

How can the Government "fight dirty"?

[Use of statutory instruments, delegated legislation, announcements etc during Parliamentary recesses e.g. "Health and Safety in Mines Order"].

Part Six: "Parliament on the ropes"

Explain what actions were taken under the Royal Prerogative and what are "Henry VIII Clauses"?

[Bombing Libya, Gulf War, power to repeal an Act or parts of an Act as under Henry VIII].

Handout 3/14: THE LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF PARLIAMENT

1The growth and power of the party.

The party system permeates the whole Parliamentary system. The operation of party government means that MPs act along party lines, limiting their objectivity and freedom of action. Equally the effective amending of legislation passing through Parliament is hampered by the party system. Committees operate along party lines with a government majority on each ensuring opposition amendments will fail unless the government agrees.

Example: In the 1987 – ’92 Parliament, MPs passed the Bill to introduce the Community Charge ("Poll Tax"), even though this new tax was heavily criticised. When, by 1990, it had become clear that the new tax was unworkable, the same House of Commons voted to replace it with the Council Tax. Both measures were implemented via the principle of the parliamentary majority and the effectiveness of the party system. Critics argue that the history of this legislation shows how ineffective Parliament is as an efficient legislative body. Conservative MPs were aware of the problems of the "Poll Tax" and yet they supported the implementation of what was, in effect, a bad law. The whole exercise cost billions of pounds and showed that Parliamentary common sense is restricted by the operation of the party system.

2 A weak scrutiniser.

Parliament is not an effective scrutiniser of executive actions because the tools at its disposal are in themselves weak, but through the operation of party politics they are made even weaker. MPs do not have the time nor the resources for such scrutiny. Question Time is no more than theatre. Only written questions effectively supply MPs with information on executive actions, but even this is limited.

Example: Much of the work of government is now not even carried out by government itself, but by agencies or QUANGOS. These are semi-independent organisations such as health service trusts which are often beyond democratic control and scrutiny, and whose members are often political appointees e.g. the infamous "Tory Wives" – presumably soon to be replaced by Labour Wives.

3 Redresser of grievances.

Parliament is more effective as a redresser of grievances. MPs, because of their position, do command respect and influence. They can "get things done" for constituents. Equally, they may take up a cause or work with a pressure group, maintaining public awareness and gaining support.

Example: The campaign for lower drink-drive limits has been supported for many years by various backbench MPs. In early 1998, the government agreed, in principle, to introduce legislation.

4 Post-War centralisation.

Since 1945, Parliament has been unable to prevent the gradual transfer of power to the executive and away from Parliament.

Example: The office of Prime Minister has become much more powerful in recent years; a trend exaggerated by the premiership of Margaret Thatcher (N.B. "Is he ‘one of us’" tests). She began the trend of appointing sympathetic Civil servants, a trend which has been continued by her successors as Prime Minister.

5 The size and secrecy of government.

Much of what takes place in Whitehall is shrouded in secrecy. MPs argue that they are unable to effectively scrutinise government departments and the Civil Service and they are excluded from examining many decisions of the executive because of "national security".

Example: The government refuses to answer questions on certain matters ranging from telephone tapping to arms trading. The list of such matters is growing.

6 Membership of the European Union.

This has reduced Parliament’s role as the primary legislator in Britain. Equally, Parliament has been forced to amend British law to bring it into line with European law.

Example: In 1996 the government was forced to comply with an EU directive that no-one should be forced to work more than a 48 hour week. The then government had always been opposed to what it saw as interference with British working practices.

7 Quangos.

These bodies are appointed by Ministers and their staff are unelected. They are not part of any government department, have limited public accountability and are often secretive. Quangos now account for over a fifth of government expenditure and the number of functions under their control has increased dramatically.

Example: Universities, many hospitals, opted-out schools, all Sixth Form Colleges (!) are all operated and controlled by Quangos – often full of people who know very little about what they are in control of!

8 The growth in the power of the executive.

Through the operation of party government, the Prime Minister and government are able to control the work of the Commons. This is done through:

	the Leader of the house who is a Cabinet Minister responsible for organising many of the activities of the House;
	the Whips;
	the power of patronage. All MPs aim to climb the ministerial ladder, but in order to do so they must not upset the PM or party. The majority of MPs will not act independently of their party, unless allowed to do so in free votes. Their aims can limit their objectivity.

Example: The Leader of the House is responsible for drawing up the Parliamentary timetable and for deciding which topics will be debated. The partisan nature of the role ensures that the minimum damage possible will be inflicted upon the executive.

9 Financial control now rests with the executive.

The executive constructs the annual budget in secrecy, presenting MPs with a finalised version, and many of its provisions come into effect as it is announced.

Example: In 1997, the government had a post-election budget which imposed taxes upon pension funds – affecting millions of people, but a complete surprise until its announcement in the budget. There was no mention of these proposals in Labour’s 1997 Manifesto.

10 Parliament is handicapped by its own rules and practices.

Although there have been changes to procedure, even these are subject to manipulation by the executive. Critics argue that the existence of ancient practices and an unelected second chamber hampers the capacity to scrutinise and take effective action.

Example: On taking office, Labour changed the procedure for Prime Minister’s Question Time with very little consultation with other parties.

Reform is, to a limited extent, now on the political agenda. Reforms to the House of Lords and momentum generated by regional government in Scotland and Wales may move reform of the Commons up the political agenda – but it is never likely to be the highest of priorities. Oppositions are always keen on reform; when they get into Government and it is their practices that are on the reform agenda, they, strangely, become rather less keen on the idea.