Ep. 215 Parliamentary Scrutiny

Hello and welcome to the A-Level Politics Show peeps. Today we will spend a good deal of time looking at the tools of scrutiny that Parliament enjoys and assess whether these tools are effective in holding the Government to accounts. Now, I have recorded pods on the two other Parliamentary functions including representation, check out episode 160 and legislation. Now, there's an update for legislation coming out in February 2026. So, look out for that. I've also looked at the role of back benches in the past, episode 189 and Parliamentary Committees in greater depth than I explore today. That's episode 130 and also the role of the opposition. That's episode 121. I have compared the lords with the commons but like with the legislative function pod, I'll be updating that episode before the summer of 2026 and so too a pod on reforming the lords. So, lots done and lots still to do. Let's therefore get cracking on the scrutiny function. This is an episode of course which in itself is an update to pod number 30. Now, if you have a non-source question and if it's simply asking you whether Parliament performs its scrutiny function effectively, my advice would be to have a paragraph on the lords, a paragraph on parliamentary committees and a paragraph on parliamentary questions. A lords paragraph is important since a question that has the word Parliament in it requires you to cover both chambers. If the question is just about the commons, only use tools available to the House of Commons. However, I'm going to analyse lots and lots of tools of scrutiny today because you may get a source question on scrutiny and that source might cover, might contain a lot of different types of oversight such as votes of confidence and opposition days and you'll feel more confident if you know what these sorts of things are and if you are able to develop them and assess them. One more tip, somewhere in your essay you really should mention how scrutiny is dependent upon the size of a government's majority. This gives you valuable A02 points for analysis since bringing in factors that affect scrutiny will showcase your perceptiveness, your thoughtfulness needed for a level 5 response. In anticipation that a source might have arguments relating to a governmental majority, I'll be covering it in a separate section towards the end of this pod. Okay, what is the question we are answering today? It is this. Evaluate the view that Parliament has become increasingly effective in its scrutiny of the government. My direction is this. In recent times, yes, Parliament has indeed become more effective at scrutinising the work of government. To prove this argument, I'll be analysing the work of one parliamentary committees. Two parliamentary questions. Three, the House of Lords. Four, votes of confidence. Five, opposition days and six, as stated, the size of the government's majority and its impact on scrutiny. So here we go then. Let's start first with parliamentary committees. Arguably, there are limits to the effectiveness of parliamentary committees. Let's look first at public bill committees or legislative committees. Now, these are committees that examine a bill line by line and suggest amendments. Arguably, they're ineffective because government whips decide their membership. As a result, many inexperate MPs just vote along party lines hoping to carry favour with the government. The government always enjoys a majority of these committees and thus successful amendment proposals to bills are usually only those that the government favours. Over 99% of ministerial amendments succeed in these committees while the success rate for non-government amendments is below 1%. Isabel Harbman's book Why We Get The Wrong Politicians? noted the MPs used public bill committees to write their Christmas cards such was the ritualistic pointlessness of their existence. In addition, bill committees are involved at the later stages of the legislative process once there has already been a commons vote at the second reading. The ordinary members of the bill committee may have little expertise in case they cause a headache to the government. In 2011, Sarah Wallister, a conservative back bench MP at the time, had worked for 24 years as a doctor, but she was prevented from sitting on the public bill committee, scrutinising changes to the NHS. Bill committees are only temporary and exist only so long as the bill is making its way through Parliament. Thus, its members can never build up the kind of expertise needed because the committee doesn't exist for that long. However, one should not go too far in belittling the work of public bill committees. They are the only place where there is detailed clause by clause scrutiny to legislation at committee stage and where ministers attend along with shadow ministers to debate amendments. Public bill committees have the power to take both written and oral evidence from external experts, stakeholders, lobby groups and government officials. As a result, some really important challenges can be made to government proposals and force the government into improving its own legislation. The public bill committee examining the Hillsborough Law in 2025 suggested beefing up legal duties of local authorities to provide transparency and candor in the event of local tragedies like the Gruman Gangs scandal. Indeed, the stronger argument is that other committees provide excellent scrutiny of the government. For example, select committees shadow the work of government departments and provide a useful check on their work. Following the right committee reform, select committee chairs are now elected by their fellow MPs in a secret ballot rather than chosen by the party whips and move which has increased their independence. Select committees may appoint specialist advisors, possibly an academic in the field that they are investigating to assist them in their work. They produce a report to which the government is expected to respond within two months. The members of a select committee decide on the areas that they will investigate in October 2025. For example, the Treasury Select Committee challenged the government over its lack of preparedness following the outage at Amazon web services that affected thousands of businesses. They have the power to gather written and oral evidence under some witnesses. In May 2021, the Health Science and Technology Select Committee heard seven hours of evidence from the Prime Minister's former special adviser Dominic Cummings who revealed that the government lacked a plan to fight COVID at the start of the outbreak. In addition, the Home Affairs Select Committee led an inquiry into the Windrush scandal where the Home Secretary Ambul Rudd denied that the Home Office had targets for deportation of illegal immigrants. Leaked emails subsequently suggested that they were targets and that Rudd was aware of them. She resigned from her post taking four responsibilities. These examples demonstrate the ability of select committees to investigate the work of government and make it accountable for its actions. Similarly, the standards committee and privileges committees have investigated wrongdoing amongst ordinary MPs. The 2023 Privileges Committee investigation over whether Boris Johnson Lighter Parliament found that he did influenced his decision to resign as an MP. Other select committees also contribute to valuable scrutiny, which I won't go to detail about here. But Honourable mentions should be made about the Public Accounts Committee and now this is the most high profile select committee, which critically examines government spending and which is always chaired by an opposition MP, creating great independence from government. Its 2025 report shed light on the failures surrounding the ministry of defences handling of the F-35 Combat Aircraft Programme. There is also the Liaison Committee, made up of all the committee chairs and which meets three times a year to question the Prime Minister. So in December 2025, it quizzed Starma about the progress of the Labour Government to date. In March 2021, several members of the Liaison Committee press Boris Johnson, who was Prime Minister at the time, to address the problems faced by musicians touring the EU, now that they require expensive visas due to the end of free movement after Brexit. Thus, scrutiny is alive and well in parliamentary committees. They take on the government, they challenge them, they question their policies. Let's now turn to parliamentary questions. Are they just as good? There are many types of parliamentary questions. PMQs are the ones you are probably most familiar with, where once a week the Prime Minister must attend the House of Commons and take multiple questions from MPs, including six from the main opposition leader. PMQs have been described as a punch and duty show by David Cameron. Governments often request that their own backbenches ask planted questions, which are easy for the Prime Minister to answer. Government whips strongly encourage repetitious and memorable sound bites from the government backbenches, allowing the PM the chance to batter way easy questions. Tory MPs are reminded David Cameron of his party's long-term economic plan before the 2015 general election, and that had far more to do with electioneering than with scrutiny. Plenty questions from government backbenches also allow the Prime Minister to point score against opposition leaders. Several Labour MPs have asked what the Prime Minister thinks about reform UK and its running of Kent County Council, allowing Stalmer a chance to challenge the party leadership under Nigel Farage. This example shows that Prime Minister's questions is simply about goture politics, again rather than meaningful oversight. Indeed PMQs is only effective if the opposition leader is comfortable in the spotlight and whether they are able to show a command of the occasion, can be battenock appeared nervous her hands were shaking at her first few outings as opposition leader during Prime Minister's questions. Even urgent questions where a minister is expected to appear immediately to answer a question accepted by the speaker have been undermined by a focus on image rather than substance. In February 2020, Labour MP Tracy Bravin was criticised for what she was wearing while raising an important issue about journalists access to number 10 Downing Street. A junior minister has often sent to answer a UQ an urgent question. rather than the Secretary of State. In January 2022, Boris Johnson sent his lonely paymaster general to answer an urgent question relating to lockdown parties at number 10. Opposition MPs shouted, "Where is he and shame?" However, parliamentary questions, PMQs or UQs, provide a useful way for Parliament to hold the Government to account, "Bad enough is getting better." In September 2025, she grilled Stama over his appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US, despite Mandelson's historic links to disgraced Peter Fowell, Jeffrey Epstein. The leader of the opposition can also inflict serious damage on a Government with memorable sound bites of their own. Stama's, "Why is he still here?" Question of Boris Johnson compounded the pressure upon the then Prime Minister over party gate and revelations of lockdown parties at number 10. Going back further, Blair quipped of John Major that he was in office, but not in power, and that "I lead my party," he follows his. And of course, who could forget the famous "Week, Week" assertion to rub salt into the wounds of a Prime Minister at the time, struggling to hold his party together? Furthermore, urgent questions, UQs, are a particularly useful way of scrutinising the Government. Speaker Lindsay Hoyle allowed 440 UQs between 2019 to 2024. On January 2025, Tory Front venture Mel Stride posed a UQ on the impact of borrowing costs on public finances. In December 2025, the Health Secretary was asked about Government plans to deal with winter flu. These questions are effective because the Minister has no time to prepare and is compelled to come immediately to the chamber once a speaker has accepted a UQ. Thus, questioning in Parliament can be very effective. Let's now turn to what happens in the Lords. [Music] Granted, there are limits to the House of Lords scrutiny role, limits put in place as result of its unelected nature. The Parliament Act 1949 limits its power to that of a one-year delay after which the Government dominated commons can force through legislation. Rules of financial privilege exist for the same reason the Lords cannot block a budget, so to the Salisbury Convention, which bars the Lords from examining legislation contained in the elected Government's manifesto. The fact that Parliamentary ping pong was curtailed over the EU-Dural Act 2020 owed much to the Lords' own awareness that they were challenging a Government with a large commons majority with a fresh mandate to get Brexit done. Indeed, the biggest constraint on the Lords scrutiny role stems from the Peers' own awareness that they are unelected. It may make a stand as it did on the safety of Rwanda Bill, but eventually it will nearly always back down the Government-dominated House of Commons stripped out all of the suggested Lords amendments to that bill. However, the House of Lords has become far, far more effective as scrutinising the work of government. It provides many of the same scrutinising roles as the House of Commons, such as questioning ministers and convening select committees. It has been, particularly effectively recently, due to the absence of a Government majority in the Chamber, now that the hereditary peers have been removed in the House of Lords Act 1999 and in a subsequent bill currently before Parliament. This was evident when the Tory Government suffered multiple defeats on its policing bill in January 2022, a bill that had largely sailed through the commons. The Government was also forced to drop plans to loosen pollution roles when it comes to House building as a result of a laws defeat in September 2023. The cross-bentures, most of whom are chosen by the House of Lords' appointment commission, due to achievements outside of politics, have gained a pivotal status and hold the balance of power in the Chamber. They have no party affiliation and thus cannot be whipped by Government or the Opposition. The House of Lords has proved particularly willing to take the Government to task over the rights of vulnerable groups. The Lords held up the EU of Dural Act 2017 over an amendment confirming the post-Brexit rights of EU citizens residing in the UK. The Lords also proved more difficult and obstacle than the commons for Boris Johnson in his attempts to pass the EU with Dural Act 2020 by adding a provision to protect child refugees. After the 2024 general election, the commons ability to scrutinise will be limited by Labour's 170-plus seat majority, meaning that scrutiny of Government bills is more likely to happen. In the Lords, indeed, as of November 2025, the Lords has inflicted over 100 defeats on the Labour Government and slowed the path of the employment rights bill over fears that businesses would be swamped in job-killing regulation, thus if you want true independence, look no further than the House of Lords. Let's now return back to the commons, though, and in particular votes of confidence. The official opposition has the right to call a vote of no confidence in the Government. The Government by Convention must make time for this debate. If the motion is successful, i.e., if MPs vote that they have no confidence in the Government, then by convention a general election must be called. Yet job-majors government survived just such a vote in the 1990s, despite losing the vote on her EU deal by an historic 230 votes in January 2019. More on that in a minute. The Government survives a confidence motion the following day with the U.P. backing. No Prime Minister has ever been removed individually in a vote of confidence. Why? Why do votes of confidence not work? Because they nearly always, that's the Government, nearly always, has a majority of their own MPs who will never back a vote of confidence. A Government with a majority will always survive it. Now, this is all convention a wisdom. What about the reality? Arguably a sentient motion or a vote of confidence can seriously weaken a Government and a Prime Minister and provide decent scrutiny. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher successfully passed a no-confidence motion against the Labour Government, which led to a general election. There are also other forms of votes of confidence that arguably have a greater impact. Backbench MPs can also call for a vote of no confidence in a specific leader. Boris Johnson had to face a vote of no confidence in his leadership, which was called for by his own backbenchers in June 2022. Now, while he survived the vote, 148 out of 359 Tory MPs voted to remove him, a significant minority, his authority thereafter lay in tatters. Indeed, the threat of a party vote of confidence in its own leader may force Government Ministers to listen to their own backbenchers more than they would wish to. Maybe that's why Stama ditched plans for compulsory ID cards in January 2026. The opposition can also play a valuable role in scrutiny. Let's see how this unfolds by examining opposition days. Opposition days are allocated in the House of Commons for the discussion of subjects chosen by the opposition. The opposition are only allocated, though, 20 opposition days per year. The Government can usually rely on its inbuilt Commons majority to defeat motions that arise during these debates. In recent years, MPs from the governing party have simply abstained from voting if they felt they were going to lose. In 2017, the Tory Government, which at the time had no parliamentary majority, abstained from voting on a Labour motion, calling for a pay rise for nurses. In February 2024, an SMP opposition day descended into chaos after the Speaker allowed a Labour amendment on Gaza to be voted upon, which resulted in SMP and Conservative MPs staging a walk out. However, however, opposition days can indeed pressurise the Government. The debates are usually followed by a non-binding vote, which seeks to put pressure on a Government to change policy. They can also seek to divide the governing party. Labour's Opposition Day motion on fracking in October 2022 sparked chaos on the Tory backbenches and was mishandled badly by Government Party whips. It contributed to the resignation of Liz Truss as Prime Minister. Opposition days can be effective as can all the other forms of scrutiny be effective, especially when the Government lacks a majority or if the governing party is divided as it has been recently and it is to this issue which we lastly turn. Okay, so a Government with a large majority will tend to limit the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. The fusion of powers means that the Government sits in Parliament and can control it prior to 2010 and under the Blair Governments. Parliament was accused of acting like a rubber stamp. The whips, those Government Ministers that seek to persuade backbenches to vote with the Government, influenced who sat on select committees. Promotion was tied to loyalty. MPs who sided with the Government said a better chance of landing a good ministerial job. The Government only suffered four commons, defeats in 10 years and none between 1997 to 2004. Rebellions whereby Government backbenches vote against their party could be ignored due to large commons' majorities. Even with a small majority between 2015 and 2017, the Conservatives were able to steer through controversial policies such as the Trade Union Act and Investigatory Powers Act. Labour has not yet lost a single commons vote since winning a massive majority in 2024. However, control of Parliament by a majority Government is never absolute. Defeats are only avoided by compromising. Labour only got its welfare reform bill through because it ditched cuts to personal independence payments. The Synac Government lost a vote on the effective. The Synac Government lost a vote on the infected blood scandal in December 2023 when 22 Tory MPs voted with opposition parties to speed up compensation payments. The right committee reforms weakened the influence of the whips in multiple ways, especially by allowing greater independence from for select committee chairs. In addition, a Prime Minister who has deemed weak will likely face more hostility, regardless of their majority. A culture of rebellion has become established over the past decade, owing to Brexit, the pandemic, weak leadership, and divides within the governing party. Hence why Sunak struggled to address the recent Supreme Court decision blocking the sending of asylum seekers to Rwanda as his party became divided over whether it should set aside international law. Hence why Starma, a weak leader too, with restless backbentures too, has you turned on multiple policy proposals, ranging from winter fuel allowance cuts to changes in inheritance tax increases for farmers. Thus, scrutiny can find a way to prevail in a majority government, and especially when that majority government is divided. Furthermore, it will be even more prominent in a hung parliament, a situation where no party enjoys a majority of seats and must either govern with another party, we call that a coalition, or as a minority government, where it must do deals on a bill by bill basis to get its program through with minor parties. Let's look at the Tory Lib Dem coalition years of 2010 to 2015. This hung parliament coincided with the elevation of John Birkow to Speaker who insisted that ministers come to Parliament more often and answer more urgent questions. In coalition, the government faced potential rebellions from two political parties. Ministers were very cautious, therefore, in introducing bills that would upset either, back bench, grouping, hence why the Tories could not repeal the Human Rights Act. Fast forward to the 2017 minority government, where the Tories lost the majority they received at the 2015 general election. They were reliant on the Democratic Unionist Party to get them a majority of votes in a confidence and supply arrangement. This arrangement was not a formal coalition, the DUP supplied support to the government on key votes, votes of confidence, budgets and so on. But it proved willing to vote against the government on two meaningful votes about Brexit in 2019, helping to deal Theresa May's government a record of feet by 230 votes. Parliament increasingly challenged the government at this time, the passing of the Ben Act in 2019, required the government to seek an extension to Brexit after the initial 31st of October date. And I think this marked the high water point of back bench influence over the government. This act came about when back benches took over the agenda of Parliament by using standing order 24, an emergency debate motion order, which then speak up, Birkow, allowed, thus circumstances that deny government majority will always result in greater scrutiny of its business. Thus, Parliament has become better at scrutiny, in some ways, despite the huge majorities of Johnson and Starma. The removal of any party majority in the House of Lords and the increase significance of the cross-bentures has slowed down the legislative process for straighting the government. There are forms to the committee system have loosened the grip of the whips. We've seen two hung parliaments in the last five general elections. Granted, the restoration of a strong commons majority after 2019 appeared at first to reverse this trend, key events, COVID, especially, massively increase the power of the executive, yet poor leadership will always result in greater scrutiny, regardless of majority. Johnson and trust terminally damaged authorities, a culture of rebelliousness cultivated by Brexit, has also remained as shown by Labour MPs rebelling over cuts to winter fuel payments. Likewise, strengthen committees and a truly independent House of Lords are both here to stay. Labour are caught between having a huge commons advantage, but without a clear vision of what they want to do with it, which further aids oversight. I hope you enjoyed this pod as much as I did in putting it together. Do check out, or look out for the pods I mentioned at the start of this episode. To do that, you'll want to subscribe to Plus Plus Plus for just £1.99 a month. You get access to the complete back catalogue of A-level politics shows to listen to when you want for as many times as you want. All 215 at the time of recording. Cancel any time, no hidden fees, deets in the show notes. James Bond will return in pod 216, where I will cross the pond to look at presidential power. Until then, see ya.