Effect of PM Question Time on Government Decision Making

Effect of PM suspicion cartridge holder on Government Decision MakingAs Norton has noned, parliament ceased to be a form _or_ system of governing-making legislature in the nineteenth nose sightdy and is now a constitution-influencing legislature. fantan is thus expected to subject insurance to a parade of test and learn.1 This essay lead assess the intent to which the present mechanisms available to parliament to call the government to account can be said to have a meaningful ability to cause governmental close making. In order to evaluate the role of parliament in this matter, some of the procedural mechanisms of the accommodate must be examined. hesitancy Time in the House of Commons is one of the principal subject matter by which information is obtained from ministers by Members of Parliament.2 Prior notice of the questions is crack upn to ministers, however, ancillary questions whitethorn past be asked on matters arising out of the ministers reply, of whi ch notice will not have been deceasen. Question Time is wide publicised and therefore has the effect of drawing public attention to matters of incident concern. The process can alike mettlesomelight the capabilities of individual ministers as they will need to think on their feet in order to answer the supplementary questions. In April 1995 the then Health Secretary announced that some(prenominal) capital of the United Kingdom hospitals were to be closed to curb public expenditure. The announcement of this unpalatable policy was made through and through a written answer rather than by word of mouth in the House. At Question Time the Health Secretary was charge of lacking moral courage3 and the episode gained considerable publicity.Question Time is the yet regular occasion upon which the government is obliged to account to Parliament for its management of the nations affairs.4 Other merits of the system are that it provides an luck for the opposition to opt issues as well as an opportunity for backbench system of macrophages to question ministers. This in turn allows for local and regional issues to be given hearing in full parliamentary session. It also offers ministers the opportunity to become aware of issues which world power differentwise have gone unnoticed. Parliamentary questions are very utile in highlighting existing governmental policy and bringing all controversial issues surrounding it to the attention of the media and hence the public. This allows effective scrutiny of government. However, the process does not provide a direct mechanism for effecting governmental finding making, although indirectly, the resulting public force per unit range whitethorn provide a mechanism for influencing policy change. Further limitations are that it operates on a rota system, with departments being subject to questions only once per 3 or 4 weeks time restraints make in depth questioning impossible and, sensitive questions can be avoided.5 Moreover , government backbenchers are able to reduce the time available for opposition questions by presenting favourable questions to ministers.Each Wednes twenty-four hours the House of Commons hosts Prime Ministers Questions which lasts approximately 30 minutes. This procedure allows the Leader of the Opposition to put up to three questions to the Prime Minister. This presents an opportunity for immediate argument between the parties and can affect MPs perceptions of their leaders.6 Other MPs are then able to ask questions of the Prime Minister. As above, this allows for raising public awareness of issues and for questioning government policy. However, similar problems also exist, with the use of government backbenchers to approbation government implement rather than question it. This process has lead Loveland to argueThat MPs and ministers feel it appropriate to waste the Commons evidently hold and supposedly valuable time on such nonsense is in itself regrettable. That such questi ons are also manifestly an insult to the intelligence of voters provides advance justification for the contention that the House of Commons is a quite short vehicle for the sensible representation of political opinion in a modern democratic society.7Another way in which parliament may effect governmental conclusion making is via turn over. There are several types of debate which happen in the House of Commons. Debate will arrive after the second reading of legislation, yet there are other provisions as well. Emergency debates may exceptionally occur where a matter is deemed to be of urgent national importance. There are also daily adjournment debates, where backbenchers can initiate short debate on matters for their choosing. hireion is by ballot through the Speakers Office. Members may also express concerns about issues by tabling a written apparent motion requesting debate at an early day. However, such early day motions rarely result in debate and instead are chiefly conf ined to shoeing the strength of parliamentary feeling on particular issues.8 Where pressure grows significantly the government may feel inclined to respond hardly again the influence is often indirect.Carroll provides an evaluation of debate as a whole.9 He states that the merits of debates are that they force ministers to explain and justify policy initiatives to the House they provide an opportunity for the opposition to expose flaws in government policy and decisions and present suggestions they help to educate public opinion they provide an opportunity for government ministers to display dissent, enabling policy changes to be considered and, they give MPs the opportunity to present the views of constituents and interest groups. However, the demerits of debate according to Carroll are high in number in the main it is the government, rather than parliament, which decides what will be debated and when (there are twenty Opposition Days when the Opposition chooses the subject for de bate) more or slight debates are dominated by the frontbenches there is not time to fetter in full detailed debate or to debate crises as and when they arise they are often poorly attended they attract low public attention. Furthermore, Carroll alleges that policy is formed and decisions made before parliamentary debate takes place. The government therefore defends its decisions during debate regardless of any merits of alternative proposals or exposed defects in its decisions and therefore debates appear to have very itty-bitty immediate effect in terms of influencing government thinking or action.10Perhaps the most effective scrutiny of government is through select committees.11 These committees are chaired by senior backbenchers and consist of between 9 and 13 backbench members. They allow in depth analysis of departmental action and investigate a wide range of topics.12 Examples of issues investigated by select committees take on the Westland Affair13, although the governm ent refused to allow witnesses from the Department of Trade and sedulousness to give evidence and the Arms to Iraq controversy, where the demand Committee on Trade and Industry examined the sale of equipment to Iraq during the first Gulf conflict. Media interest may also influence the topics investigated by select committees, as evidenced by the examination of the decision to go to war in Iraq by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in 2003.14Select committees are empowered to send for persons, cover and records and can expect full government co-operation. Furthermore, persons giving evidence must take a formal oath. However, as illustrated above, the co-operation of government, although expected, is not always assured. once a select committee has investigated an issue it will publish a make known. Around one third of these reports result in debate in the House, which are subject to the analysis above. Carroll has provided further evaluation of the merits and demerits of select committees,15 stating in support that they provide a systematic infrastructure for detailed scrutiny of government conduct they are the only parliamentary forum in which ministers and public servants may be questioned in depth on topics not determined by party leaders there is a less party-political atmosphere the members gain expertise in a particular area the reports attract media attention. However, the demerits include they cannot impose any sanctions or direct pressures on government if dissatisfied with departments conduct as noted, few reports result in debate the government can dictate when persons will not give evidence they are poorly supported in terms of resources facilities and look for staff.From the analysis above it may be seen that although Parliament has several pick open in terms of scrutinising government action, these procedures offer little in terms of direct effect of government decision and policy making. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House o f Commons has produced a report which suggests reforms to make better use of non-legislative time and strengthen the role of the backbench MPs.16 So far this has resulted in minimal reforms such as a reserve of time for Topical Questions in departmental question time and a consideration of ways in which opportunities to debate the plans of government departments may be guaranteed.17 However, without further reform, Parliament is currently unable to influence government decision making in any significant per-event sense.BibliographyAllen, M. and Thompson, B., Cases and Materials on total and administrative Law, 9th adaptation (2008), Oxford University PressBarnett, H., personalityal and Administrative Law, 6th Edition (2006), Routledge CavendishBogdanor, V., The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century, (2003), Oxford University PressBradley, A.W. and Ewing, K.D., Constitutional and Administrative Law, fourteenth Edition (2007), PearsonCarroll, A., Constitutional and Adminis trative Law, 4th Edition (2007), Pearson Education churchman Hutton, The media reaction to the Hutton Report, (2006) PL 807Loveland, I., Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Human Rights A slender Introduction, 4th Edition (2006), Oxford University PressNorton, P. (ed), Parliament in the 1980s, (1985), BlackwellPollard, D., Parpworth, N., and Hughes, D., Constitutional and Administrative Law schoolbook with Materials, 4th Edition (2007), Oxford University Press1Footnotes1 Norton, P. (ed), Parliament in the 1980s, (1985), Blackwell, pg 82 Barnett, H., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 6th Edition (2006), Routledge Cavendish, pg 4053 cited in Loveland, I., Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Human Rights A Critical Introduction, 4th Edition (2006), Oxford University Press, pg 1574 Carroll, A., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 4th Edition (2007), Pearson Education, pg one hundred sixty5 Carroll, supra pg 1616 Loveland, supra pg 1587 Loveland, supra pg 1598 Po llard, D., Parpworth, N., and Hughes, D., Constitutional and Administrative Law Text with Materials, 4th Edition (2007), Oxford University Press, pg 2819 Carroll, supra pp 162-16410 Carroll, ibid note 911 Bogdanor, V., The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century, (2003), Oxford University Press, pg 17212 Bradley, A.W. and Ewing, K.D., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 14th Edition (2007), Pearson, pg 21913 defense team Committee, HC 518, 519 (1985-86), London HMSO Trade and Industry Committee, HC 176 (1986-87), London HMSO Treasury and Civil returns Committee, HC 92 (1985-86), London HMSO14 Lord Hutton, The media reaction to the Hutton Report, (2006) PL 80715 Carroll, supra pp 168-17016 Allen, M. and Thompson, B., Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law, 9th Edition (2008), Oxford University Press, pg 32117 Allen and Thompson supra pp 321-322