Departmental Select Committees In Westminster Parliament

Arguably, Parliament’s most vital role is to review and challenge the policy work of the Government. This can be performed through an array of tools such as Prime Minister’s Questions, Debates and Committees. This essay will examine each form of scrutiny in the Westminster parliament and evaluate their effectiveness. Scrutiny ensures that policies that need parliamentary approval are being reviewed and debated upon in both of the Houses of Parliament, House of Commons and House of Lords (Dorey, 2014). Committees made up of MPs can also scrutinise Government legislation either before or after the bill has been enacted. (Dorey, 2014). It is important for Parliament to hold the Government to account to limit its power and prevent one party from
completely controlling policy making.

Committees in the House of Commons are a form of scrutiny on the Government. Select committees operate in both Houses and are largely concerned with the cross examination of Government policy issues in detail (Parliament.uk). A Public or Private Bill Committee is appointed for each Bill that goes through Parliament. These committees are exclusive to the House of Commons. For the bill to be examined effectively depends on its complexity and how serious the issue is. The examination could take days or months (ibid). The longer it takes the bill to be examined, the better the scrutiny of the bill in theory. However it can be months before the revised bill is completed. In dealing with Government bills, public bill committees can take evidence written or orally (Jones & Norton, 2014). The use of committee evidence taking has been prevalent in the House of Commons. In the 2007-08 session, 12 committees overheard the evidence of 229 witnesses (Jones & Norton, 2014). This would suggest more insightful and well-rounded scrutiny of Government bills placed in the Commons.

Departmental Select Committees are another form of scrutiny in Westminster.
There is a Commons Select Committee for each government department, examining three aspects: spending, policies and administration (parliament.uk). These committees operate in both chambers of parliament and were not established until the late 20th century. Scrutiny in Westminster went up a level in 1979 with the establishment of Departmental Select Committees (George & Morgan). These committees have a minimum of 11 members and they cover, in-depth analysis of particular departments of the government (Norton, 2007). These Committees also have power to appoint specialist advisers. They are often academics, and are appointed to assist with particular inquiries of the committee. This, in theory, would increase the expertise of the committee members, allowing for more effective scrutiny of the department area. Since 1979, the number of Departmental select committees has fluctuated (Norton, 2007). In 1994 for instance, pressure from the Ulster Unionist party led to the creation of a Northern Ireland Select Committee (ibid). Party loyalty and the Whipping system may mean than bills are not being scrutinized to Westminster’s full potential. Many members just toe the line and vote on bills based on blind loyalty as opposed to voting based on the evidence that their committee has presented. However, committees are made up of MPs from both the Government and the opposition and their membership

reflects the party balance as a whole. The majority of each committee will be MPs from the governing party however members of the opposition parties are included meaning the Government and its policies can be challenged
(parliament.uk.)

Another form of scrutiny in Westminster is debates. Most of the time in both Houses of Parliament are taken up by debates (Jones & Norton, 2014). Debates are a way for MPs and Lords to discuss government policy and talk about current issues (parliament.uk). Debates can help MPs or lords reach an informed decision on a particular motion. Debates can be in many forms, they could be on a substantive motion (e.g. congratulating or condemning a policy of the government), or to allow a discussion on an adjournment motion. (Jones & Norton, 2014). Debates can be full of life, and involve MPs intervening to either support or challenge what the speaker has said. Debates are dictated by rules, there can be no overwhelming background noise or use of any unparliamentarily language (parliament.uk). Any MP who does not adhere to these rules may face ejection from the house. The debating and challenging of each MPs points is a good example of scrutiny in Westminster, it is a way for direct challenging of government policy and if done effectively could swing the vote on a particular subject against the government’s bidding (Benoit & Benoit-Bryan) . An example of a famous and effective debate in the House of Commons was the debating on the situation in the Persian Gulf on an adjournment motion (Jones & Norton, 2014).

Question Time is a way for MPs and Members of the House of Lords to question government ministers about matters for which they are responsible (parliament.uk). This takes place in parliament every weekday bar Friday. Larger departments such as Department for health and social care usually get the full hour however smaller departments get allocated with less time. Question time allows for oral scrutiny of a minister’s goings on over his or her department meaning they are held to account for their actions in front of other parliament members. Question time is relatively new, with the first question being asked was recorded in 1721 (Jones & Norton, 2014). Prime Minister’s Questions originated from question time. This is held once a week on a Wednesday from 12 noon to 12:30. The session starts with a routine question from an MP on the Prime Minister’s dealings. This is an 'open question' and means that the MP can then ask a supplementary question on any subject they wish (parliament.uk). This means that in theory, the Prime Minister will not know what is being asked and will have to think on their feet in response as they will have no prepared answers for the MPs questions. This should allow for more effective and in depth scrutiny of the Prime Minister.

In conclusion, scrutiny is an important element in Westminster parliament. Scrutiny is carried out in a number of ways; Committees, debates and Question Time. Scrutiny prevents the executive branch from becoming too powerful and holds it to account. This makes for a more democratic society with a strong but checked government. However elements of the UK political system could mean that scrutiny is not as effective or potent as it should be. Party loyalty is still evident in Westminster with MPs voting on behalf of their party as opposed to their constituent’s needs. However, features such as departmental select committees may allow for better scrutiny. These bodies can call for persons, papers and records and its members can stay in the

committee for the duration of the government, allowing for MPs to build up expertise on the area of their department.