Essay: UK Government structure

The UK’s governmental infrastructure implements a vast array of organization that dedicate a considerable amount of time and effort in placing the government under scrutiny. The role of Parliament is attributed to three key responsibilities, one of which is generally understood as scrutinising and challenging the work of the government. The other roles include granting authorization for expenditure and passing legislature. The specific purpose of parliamentary scrutiny is to potentially improve the effectiveness of government in terms of its processes and outcomes through examining expenditure, policies and administration. The Parliament requires the government of the day to justify its actions to the representatives of taxpayers. The two bodies in Parliament, the House of Lords and House of Commons, pursue their role of scrutiny through a well-established mechanism of debating, questioning and committee hearings.
In countries such as the UK with well-developed and established models of governance and accountability, the scrutiny landscape expands on a macro-scale ranging from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to the House of Parliament, demanding justification for actions conducted by the executive. However, the role of parliament is said to be distinctive, taking into account a number of factors. Firstly, the scrutiny is conducted by politicians whom which are not part of executive but are potentially associated with the same political party. This prompts the politicians in Parliament to effect real change in the executive’s agenda. The downfall to parliamentary scrutiny being undertaken by politicians is that improving the effectiveness of government and acting in the public’s best interest can be a façade, which clouds the real motivation of the scrutiny. The real motivation can often be to further the Member of Parliament’s (MP) political gain, whether it would be in sight of their individual career prospects or for the betterment of the political party as a whole. Another reason promoting parliamentary scrutiny to be distinct is that the MP’s act in their capacity as democratically elected, thereby representing the public. Having this as a factor, the Parliamentary decisions become pivotal with further legitimacy than in comparison with other forms of scrutinising bodies. This also prompts Parliament to, inherently by the UK’s uncodified constitution, have access to facilitations when gathering evidence.
Ever since the Glorious Revolution, the UK has adapted a concept known as parliamentary sovereignty as the backbone of the legislative constitution. The concept dictates that the legislative body, Parliament, is supreme above the executive and the judicial as well as all other governmental institutes. Since Parliament has been the essential core of the British constitution for centuries, parliamentary scrutiny attracts a great deal of media attention which is some form, involves the public in the current state of affairs. The involvement of the public with constant updates from a variety of media corporations, places Parliament itself under scrutiny, especially in regard to the procedural consistency and the outcome of the scrutiny. It is pivotal to acknowledge that parliamentary proceedings being all a matter of public record plays a crucial role in increasing the influence of parliamentary scrutiny and in a deterrent sense, dissuades members of the executive from committing actions without the public’s best interests at heart.
The Hansard Society has stated that Parliament ‘sits at the apex’ of an assortment of regulatory bodies all ensuring an adequate delivery of government services. One of these key regulatory bodies includes the National Audit Office, a body focusing on inspecting central government agencies, departmental institutions, non-governmental public entities and auditing for government expenditure values. Separate committees or public bodies are often set up to tackle on a particular issue such as the Committee on Climate Change or the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The British Constitution consists of three separate entities, tasked with three different objectives. The legislature makes the law, the executive applies the law and the judiciary enforces the law. In regard to mechanisms in the well-established governance and accountability model, the judiciary maintains the power of scrutinising the government to evaluate whether the authority had acted lawfully in exercising its power. The significant aspect is maintaining a separation of powers between the three independent entities in order for an impartial outcome without ulterior motives. In the case of Millar v Dickson [2002], Lord Hope stated: ‘Central to the rule of law is the principle that the judiciary must be and must be seen to be independent to the executive’ . The rule of law implies that everyone, including members of the judiciary, are subject to the law and correct mechanisms are embedded to maintain transparency of government activity.
For the time being, the UK, as a member of the European Union (EU), must abide by the ‘acquis’ involving EU regulations, treaties and protocols. The European Commission was established by the Maastricht Treaty to create formal relationship on accountability of non-compliance of a member state. The relationship, however, is a two-way street in which UK parliamentary scrutiny can be directed towards the European Commission. The UK has recently seen augmented numbers in placing private organisations under scrutiny as the private sector has increasingly been active in delivering public services such as Anglian Water. This has led to a so-called increasing ‘accountability gap’ as the government increasingly outsource public services towards private entities, whom which work with the priority of profit and not in the public’s best interests.
If parliamentary scrutiny is applied to the Prime Minister (PM), there are two main mechanisms critical of the PM’s performance and decisions. The first is a weekly high-profile occasion known as PMQs (Prime Minister Questions), whereby each MP has a chance, depending on the draw-out of a ballot, to ask about any matter within the full range of government responsibilities. The leader of the opposition party tends to be called upon to question the PM on 6 different matters, stimulating significant media attention. In recent developments, the Prime Minister can be placed under scrutiny through a triannual oral session held by the Liaison Committee, analysing evidence associated with the PM. This method of scrutiny can be pertinent as it allows in-depth questioning without a political audience.
Parliamentary Scrutiny can be tackled through debates across a range of different matters from legislature to more general public issues. Each political group is allocated time to discuss the matter they regard as pivotal to their party. Promoting a sense of fairness, any member is permitted to vote upon the matter in the chambers (House of Lords, House of Commons or additional chambers), however if a designated committee is appointed, only members of the committee exercise their right to vote. A parliamentary debate habitually involves a party presenting a political rationale and the philosophy behind the approach, and an opposition then has the chance to critically analyse the approach, demanding explanations and presenting counter-arguments in the form of evidential or formulation weaknesses/inconsistencies within the approach. This provides a leeway on the check of power of the executive and alternate solutions can be presented through a motion on the Parliament floor. The positive impact of scrutiny through debates is that it can give rise to new subjects in which each MP’s constituents lie with a different entity, creating a balanced argument. The government becomes compelled to answer on topics that have been exposed to the public through a parliamentary debate, thus building a trust through a democratic process.
The use of Parliamentary Questions is also a procedural way of compelling the executive of going on public record. The mechanism contains a rigid framework as it only enables to obtain information or to press for actions on a specific ministerial responsibility. It is an inadequate method of scrutinising the central body of the Government as specifics are not compulsory to be answered, rather than just an overview of the other party’s political agenda.
A recent development in Parliamentary Scrutiny is the allocation of certain departmental select committees which are critical upon specific issues such as the Environmental Audit. The Liaison Committee created by the House of Commons, for example, had agreed to set upon 10 ‘core’ tasks as a guide of scrutinising the full range of ministerial responsibilities. The overall aim of the Liaison Committee was to hold ministerial departments to ‘account for their policy and decision making and to support the House in its control of the supply of public money and the scrutiny of public legislation’ . The 10 ‘core’ task set by the Liaison Committee are as follows :
1. Strategy: Examining the ministry’s strategy, focusing on the primary goals and whether the department has allocated its resources in a strategic manner.
2. Policy: Make proposals for amendments in deficient policies, creating reformed policies and analytically examining the possible outcomes.
3. Expenditure & Performance: Examining the expenditure plans and performance of the department, namely the effectiveness in the relationship of supply and outcome of the ministry.
4. Draft Bills: Within the committee’s spectrum, conduct scrutiny on bills yet to be voted upon.
5. Bills and Delegate Legislation: Assist the House in statutory provisions and deliberation of Bills under in effect of the Public Bodies Act 2011.
6. Post-Legislative Scrutiny: Analysing the implementation of departmental policies against the outcome in an assessment.
7. European Scrutiny: Examine policy making and legislature on a European Level.
8. Appointments: Critical examinations of appointments to ministerial duties.
9. Support for the House: Thorough analysis of what is to be expected from the House of Parliament, as well as providing all needful documents pertinent to the issue in question.
10. Public Engagement: Disclose and engage in public relations by ensuring accessibility.
In comparison to other mechanisms, select committees play a vital role in scrutinising the central body as it has a great potential of reaching to a common consensus. The reason for that is the transparency it ensues, with the in-depth research it requires, greater evidence is accessible to the committee. The powers perceived in this mechanism trumps those found in other scrutinising agencies.
There is a variety of ways to evaluate the extent to which Parliamentary Scrutiny provides adequate and effective barriers in the actions and decision of the executive. It is possible to adapt a quantitative method using indicators such as the amount of reports made in Parliament proceedings by committees against the amendments that become in effect in the outcome of the proceedings. A qualitative approach, for example, would be studying the political influence that a scrutinising committee would create.
Judicial Review plays a pivotal role in a maintenance of procedural consistency and legal accountability. It serves as a ‘a critical check on the power of the state, providing an effective mechanism for challenging the decisions, acts or omissions of public bodies to ensure that they are lawful’ . Judicial review is the sector of the constitution which enforces any violations within the system itself, therefore it serves to protect the Ministerial Code, the Separation of Powers, the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Human Rights Act 1998. The review is based upon the doctrine of ultra vires which connotates ‘beyond the legal authority’, therefore is directly associated with procedural defects of the executive rather than the content of the law itself. This is directly reflected in Lord Bingham’s ratio decidendi that ‘the issue is not whether his decision was right or wrong, nor whether the Divisional Court or the House agrees with it, but whether it was a decision which the Director was lawfully entitled to make’ . A case in which ultra vires is clearly the matter in question is R (Lewisham LBC & Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign Ltd) v SoS Health [2013] EWCA Civ 1409, the judicial review revolved around an issue in regard to a recommendation of reduction in services by the TSA and secondly to a subsequent decision made by the Secretary of State for Health to reduce the services offered, however, in a different way than advised by the TSA .
The UK’s uncodified constitution has set a tone in which legal accountability is embedded within ministerial departments, meaning that no other person is exempt from legislation. Embedded within the well-established models of governance and judiciary are elaborate methods that function in a deterrent and retributive sense such as the evolving trend of committees engaged in tackling a specific issue. On the other hand, the system intact today contains certain limitations especially with parliamentary scrutiny. The simplest form of the issues placed in parliamentary scrutiny is that a political agenda and identity may not always lead to the better outcome in the public interests. A cynical, however accurate, point to be noted is that parliament can be deemed as a ritualistic and point-scoring platform rather than considering the real dynamics of the community. A perspective can also be taken that the lack of diversity with MPs can create bias in reaching a consensus. The UK’s constitutional foundation has an element of equilibrium and meritocracy within, therefore it inherently has safeguards.
These safeguards work towards maintaining procedural consistency and places the executive under a great deal of scrutiny with the objective of increasing effectiveness of the central government body.