Essay: Is Parliament irrelevant?
Posted: 09/02/2014 | Author: The Political Idealist | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Conservatives, democracy, government, Labour, Lib Dems, news, parliament, philosophy, Politics, society |Leave a comment »Although the UK Parliament faces increasing external competition in fulfilling its various roles and functions, recent constitutional reforms and political events have, in fact, enhanced its powers and importance. But to answer the question, we must also ask: what is Parliament relevant (or irrelevant) to? Parliament is the body responsible for creating and revising legislation; representing the British people; overseeing and scrutinising the Government; and in effect lending to the executives a source of ministers and a “right to govern” (Heywood, 2011). In several of those roles, it is argued, other bodies have become more effective than Parliament. For example, over the past century the role of the media in scrutinising Government ministers has become greater, and some say that this comes at the expense of the importance Parliamentary questions and debates.
I will consider each function of Parliament and assess its relevance in each area.
For over a century, Parliament has been reactive rather than pro-active legislative votes. This means that the vast majority of legislation is introduced by the Government; Private Members’ Bills, the means by which legislation can be introduced by backbenchers, are seldom passed without Government support. However, this does not mean that Parliament’s powers are weak, as amendments can radically alter the nature of a Bill, whilst it is increasingly common for Government proposals to be defeated altogether. In the past 8 years, the Government has lost votes in the House of Commons, the dominant house in Parliament, 11 times. This compares with no such defeats in the previous 8 years. (Election Demon, 2012).
The magnitude, not just the frequency of these defeats is changing too. A good example is the case of a motion, not a Bill In 2013, constitution-changing precedent was set when Prime Minister David Cameron sought Parliament’s permission, in the form of a motion (that is, a non-binding vote) to order British military forces to attack Syria. Observers were agreed that David Cameron did not technically need Parliament’s support, but he felt that he needed the backing of the people’s representatives. The House of Commons voted against intervention, and the Prime Minister was forced to abandon his policy. For the first time, it was Parliament, not the Prime Minister, which was dictating Britain’s military policy. This point alone proves that Parliament is relevant: there are few bigger decisions made by a nation than on whether to engage in war, and it was Parliament, not the executive, that had the decisive say on the matter.
Parliament does not have a monopoly on legislation: the European Union, and associated treaties, act as supreme law across all EU member states. In that sense, Parliament is no longer a sovereign body. Yet Parliament retains the ability to withdraw from the EU, and can also work with other parliaments in the EU to overturn European legislation that it opposes. Therefore, Parliament has gained as much power as it has lost: influence over European affairs in exchange for some European influence over British affairs hitherto the preserve of Westminster.
However, decision-making is not the only role of Parliament. Some have argued that it has surrendered its role on scrutinising ministers and the Government to the press and, more recently, news channels and social media. Observers point to the energies and resources political parties now spend on media management and “wooing” owners of media outlets compared to the marginalisation of backbench MPs. And it is true that ministerial questions worry the Government of the day to a much lesser extent than the headline in tomorrow’s edition of the Daily Mail. However, that overlooks the increasing role that both Houses play in demanding high standards of ministers and the policies they pursue, through increasingly high-profile and influential Select Committees, and through a House of Lords that often amends legislation that is seen as flawed. Both institutions within Parliament may lack “hard” power, but as they can heavily influence Parliamentary and even public opinion, their views are generally respected. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee is an example of a group of backbenchers who can set the political and media agenda by raising issues such as corporate tax avoidance and inefficiencies in spending by the Royal Household.
Another perceived weakness of Parliament is its supposedly declining ability to represent the British people. While declining turnout in general elections is a problem, few accept that it diminishes the right of their local MP to represent them. Furthermore, the case of the aforementioned Syria vote shows that Parliament can represent the people: dozens of MPs changed their minds about the vote due to the sheer volume of messages they received from constituents opposing the Government. It also shows that the Prime Minister considered Parliament to only body with the right to approve war, suggesting that it has a larger responsibility to represent than ever.
However, the House of Lords cannot be representative given that it is wholly unelected. This should not be an issue provided that the elected House of Commons remains the dominant component of Parliament, though it still undermines Parliament’s relevance as a national forum.
There is one more function of Parliament which has yet to be discussed: the provision of ministers. Given that all ministers are appointed are members of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and have been for some time, there is little to suggest that Parliament has become less relevant in this area. Though MPs in all three main parties have had their powers to select the leaders of their parties, and therefore future Prime Ministers, diminished, it remains the case that a Government cannot exist without the support of its backbenchers.
To conclude, there is little that is irrelevant about Parliament, an institution that has become more, not less, powerful as it makes more decisions of national importance and implements the powers and structures it has long needed to hold the Government to account. Institutions that rival it in its functions, such as regional and international assemblies and the media work to complement it, not diminish it. I would also add that talk of “Presidential-style” government led by recent Prime Ministers applies more to concentration of powers within the executive, and in fact Parliament has found new relevance by acting as a balance against this phenomenon.
