To What Extent is the House of Commons Effective in Carrying out Its Various Functions? The mechanisms placed in the House of Commons to ensure its effectiveness are vital to the democracy and overall quality of governing within the UK. Whilst government domination proves to be the key hindrance affecting the quality of the Commons’ work, the checks and balances and opportunities to scrutinise produce an effective chamber in regards to the most important of its functions.
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!
order now
The primary function of the House of Commons is being a law-making body and the majority government in the House of Commons can be argued as having improved the speed with which bills can be passed by the chamber, especially in relation to states of emergency such as the Anti-Terrorism Laws in 2007.
However, it comes with the tendency to pass legislature that hasn’t been fairly scrutinised and to not consider bills that have been proposed by MPs outside of government, overlooking needed legislation simply because it hasn’t originated from the executive, with only 72 Private Member’s Bills being passed under the Labour government from 1997 to 2010. The executive’s domination of seats also means government-sponsored bills can be quickly and assuredly passed in the first chamber, lessening their quality as there is less debate.
On the other hand, the House of Commons has defeated government control on various occasions, one example being on the 29 April 2009, in which a Liberal Democrat motion that all Ghurkhas be offered an equal right of residence was passed, in opposition to Labour policy. This shows a degree of efficiency within the non-executive areas of the Commons, particularly over controversial and publicised issues.
Also, the recent coalition government, with a relatively small majority of 77 seats, has found it more difficult to logistically dominate votes and is therefore forced to provide sufficient scrutiny and amendment. These examples of the Common’s independence from executive dominance, as well as the legislative speed that party control provides, makes the House of Commons a largely effective law-making body. Government influence is extensive in legislative areas due to the merging of powers, making the scrutiny and oversight within the Commons’ vital.
Their first obstacle is the party system, whose control can often undermine the capability of the chamber to scrutinise, as MPs will be unwilling to criticise their own party’s actions. To accommodate this, the Opposition Party has been afforded powers to scrutinise the government in a weekly Question Time with the Prime Minister. Although this session had been used as a jibing session, the 1997 reform of 30 minutes instead of two 15 minute sessions has helped to improve the level of consideration used by the Opposition.
However, the oral nature of this scrutiny still restricts precision and depth. Another forefront of governmental review is a Select Committee, which can call ministers to question, MPs facing heavy suspicion if they refuse. Although committee seats are representative of Commons’ seats, Committees can to meet in private, outside the pressure of party whips and question the Prime Minister (Liaison Committee), whilst the Public Accounts Committee is conventionally chaired by a member of the Opposition, in order to exclude party domination from the scrutinising.
Evidence of their effectiveness is in the revision of Cannabis laws, changing it from a Class C to B drug in 2002 after a committee’s suggestion. The committees also increase the effectiveness of representation, as they help inform the public and raise political awareness, an example being the Corporate Tax Scandal of November 2012. Although there are some flaws in the mechanisms in place to scrutinise and regulate government, this function as a whole is carried out quite effectively, with counter-balancing measures in place to make up for any short-comings
As a democratic country, the effectiveness of representatives relies on a direct link between MPs and constituencies. House of Commons has consistently failed to be socially and ethnically representative, with 22% of MPs after the 2010 general elections being female and 4. 1% of MPs being from non-white backgrounds, though around 8% of the total population are from non-white backgrounds. This saying, the elected MPs have been voted for more than any other candidate and therefore must have been effective or romising in voicing the concerns of the constituency to have been successful in the first place and is ultimately the choice of the people. In conclusion, the strong methods of scrutiny and regulation in place help to balance out party domination in representation and legislation, whilst retaining the advantages of said domination. It is the strength of executive inspection alongside its performance in law-making that creates an overall effective Commons in its key functions.
