Limitations to Scrutiny

Scrutiny is made difficult is one party dominates the House of Commons. In the mid to late 1980s, the Conservatives dominated the Commons, and between 1997 and 2005, Labour enjoyed even greater control. It is very difficult to hold government to account when so many MPs are sitting on the governing party’s benches in the Commons chamber. As the majority of MPs in the House of Commons (normally) belong to the governing party (or parties), their primary role is to support the government of the day, not to criticise or embarrass it.

Question Time is not usually a very effective form of scrutiny, and it is often described as weak and ineffective. Many commentators agree that it often ‘generates more heat than light’. Prime Minister’s Questions, in particular, often degenerates into a party-political battle between the PM and the leader of the opposition. The tribal instincts of MPS make it more likely that they will rally round the party leadership, and it is rare for MPs to inflict damaging blows at Question Time. Oral questions seldom produce detailed responses and are used to subject ministers to embarrassment, rather than scrutiny. By contrast to oral questions, tabled on the floor of the House of Commons, written questions to ministers are often more fruitful. This might be to do with the fact that written questions tend not to open ministers to too much public attention and potential embarrassment.

When it comes to debating legislation, many MPs lack the technical expertise or the interest to scrutinise adequately bills going through the Commons. Real scrutiny often relies on those MPs who have particular areas of interest or expertise. While in opposition, the Labour MP Frank Field (Birkenhead), who before his parliamentary career had been head of the Child Poverty Action Group, took a keen interest in welfare matters. Field was skilled in policy detail going through Parliament. Most MPs neither possess nor wish to possess such skills.

Poor timing of opposition days may blunt their impact. There is the temptation not to use up these days in case a major political controversy erupts. As a consequence, the opposition may come to the end of a parliamentary session and still have days to use, but no issue with which to stir up publicity and government discomfort. Conversely, even on a major issue, the reality of opposition days often does not match the expectation generated beforehand.

Select committees are widely seen as more effective than Question Time, but even they have their disadvantages. Some select committees do not exert their independence as effectively as others. Select committees are composed in a way that reflects the representation of the political parties in the Commons. Needless to say, Labour MPs have dominated these committees for much of the past decade. It is generally agreed that the most effective select committees are those that try to reach conclusions that have cross-party support, rather than those whose reports tend to be highly partisan. The government always has a majority on each of these committees and are therefore able to influence their outcomes. Committee appointments are influenced by the whips, who ensure that loyal backbenchers sit on key committees and tend to be appointed to the influential posts of committee chairs. Select committees have no executive power. At best they can criticise the government; they cannot change government policy.