To What Extent Is Parliamentary Control of the Government No Longer Effective?

To what extent is parliamentary control of the government no longer effective?

A parliamentary system of government is one in which government governs in and through parliament. It is based on a “fusion” between the legislative and executive branches of government, meaning that parliament and government are overlapping and interlocking institutions. Four key functions of parliament of are passing legislation, scrutiny of the executive, representation and recruiting ministers with two main forms of executive scrutiny being prime ministers questions and select committees. However, there is a case to say that parliamentary control of the government is no longer effective and this is what I shall discuss in this essay.

An argument which could suggest that parliamentary control has become ineffective may be due to governments holding large majority’s within government, which could be due to the electoral system used within England, First Past the Post. This system is commonly criticised for its overrepresentations of the larger parties. This overrepresentation results in large and strong government majorities which then makes them able to use their party whips to push through their own bills with little resistance from parliament, thus weakening the effectiveness of parliamentary control of the government. An example of a large majority government was with New Labour in 1997 that held a majority of 178 meaning it would have taken 90 MP’s to defeat Blair’s government. It is clear to see that governments with an overwhelming majority seriously undermine the effectiveness of parliamentary control.  

Parliamentary control of the government may also now be said to be ineffective due to the decline in party unity. Party unity reached a peak in the 1950s/60s but has since then declined. Party unity is a central plank of maintaining a stable government because it means that in any given vote the government can be confident of getting its legislation through parliament because it can rely on the unified support of the party. Where the party of government is disunited, if the government only had a small majority, it would only take a few party rebels voting against the government to mean that important legislation may not get through government. Disunited parties are becoming more commonly experienced, seen especially during the 2015 coalition between Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats which experienced the most rebellions since 1945 with coalition MPs rebelling in 35% of divisions. Party unity is clearly declining, which may be adding further emphasis on the argument that parliamentary control of the government is no longer effective.

There have been a number of occasions in recent times where the House of Lords have voted against the government therefore defeating the government in the upper chamber which has meant that the legislation returns to the commons. If the Lords reject a bill twice it is returned to the commons once more for a vote again in the government which can effectively overrule the lords. This provides evidence that parliament doesn’t hold effective control over the government.

However, there are certain things which suggest that parliamentary control of the government is still effective. One thing which goes against the statement is the fact that the UK executive still regards parliamentary approval as important, especially on major decisions; this perhaps showing that parliamentary control of the government is still effective as they do hold some say in the legislation that is passed through the Commons. The government still valuing parliament’s opinion suggests that their opinion may hold some sort of credibility, therefore implying that the executive is likely to listen to the opinion of parliament. For example, approval from Parliament was sought by Blair for the Iraq war, even though it wasn’t really required. This perhaps proves that parliamentary control of the government is still effective in some way or another.