Scrutinising The Work Of Government Essay

634 Words3 Pages
The House of Commons can scrutinise the work of the government through parliamentary questions, parliamentary debates and the work of select committees. Many of these methods are somewhat limited though. Parliamentary questions allow MPs to scrutinise the work of the Executive by extracting information about the government’s work and policies. This can reveal shortcomings, embarrass government ministers and uncover maladministration. Government ministers are obliged to answer questions in the House of Commons. For example, Home Secretary, Theresa May, has come under fire during Home Office questions for her department’s ongoing inability to deport the radical cleric Abu Qatada. However, department questions only last for an hour a day, Monday to Thursday. Ministers take it in turn to attend so time is too short to expose government incompetence or corruption. Also, ministers have numerous ways of avoiding straight answers. For example, Theresa May evaded questions about the timing of Abu Qatada’s deportation deadline fourteen times in the House of Commons. This shows ministers can be held to…show more content…
Parliamentary debates give members an opportunity to discuss government policy and performance, proposed new laws and current issues. For example, recently Labour’s shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, led an opposition debate calling on the Health Secretary to scrap the Health and Social Care Bill. However, the government can limit or restrict debate. For example, programme motions are usually debated immediately after a bill’s second reading, which set the timetable for the rest of the bill’s progress through the Commons. They can be controversial if MPs believe they are being used to limit or restrict debate. This shows the government can dodge attempts to have their work scrutinised by curtailing the process of debate so the HoC is not particularly effective at keeping a check on the
Open Document