Parliament & the Executive: Scrutiny (Edexcel A Level Politics): Revision Note

Exam code: 9PL0

Sarra Jenkins

Written by: Sarra Jenkins

Reviewed by: Lisa Eades

Updated on

What is scrutiny?

  • Scrutiny is the process by which Parliament examines, challenges and holds the executive to account for its actions, decisions and policies

  • Scrutiny is particularly important in the UK because the executive is drawn from Parliament

    • This means there is no strict separation of powers and the government may otherwise dominate the legislative process

Why scrutiny is necessary

  • The executive controls much of the parliamentary timetable

  • Strong party discipline and the use of party whips can limit backbench independence

  • Governments with large majorities under first-past-the-post may face limited opposition

  • As a result, effective scrutiny often depends on backbench MPs rather than ministers

Backbenchers as the main source of scrutiny

  • Backbenchers are MPs and peers who do not hold ministerial office

  • Most methods of parliamentary scrutiny are carried out by backbenchers, particularly in the House of Commons

    • This is because frontbenchers are part of the government and therefore cannot scrutinise themselves

  • Backbenchers play a central role in holding the government publicly accountable

Methods of parliamentary scrutiny

  • Parliament uses a range of mechanisms to scrutinise the executive, each with different levels of effectiveness

A bubble diagram showing the different methods of scrutiny
Methods of scrutiny

Committee-based scrutiny

  • Parliamentary committees are smaller groups of MPs or peers established to examine legislation, government departments or public policy in detail

  • Committees allow for more sustained and specialist scrutiny than debates on the floor of the House

1. Public bill committees

  • A Public Bill Committee is a temporary committee set up to scrutinise a specific bill during its passage through the House of Commons

Role

  • Backbenchers make up public bill committees

  • They conduct line-by-line examination of a bill

  • They take evidence from experts

  • They recommend amendments to legislation

Effectiveness

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • Allows detailed scrutiny of legislation

  • Provides opportunities for specialist amendments

  • Committee membership reflects the party balance in the House of Commons

  • The government normally has a majority on the committee

  • MPs can be whipped, limiting independent scrutiny

2. Departmental select committees

  • Departmental select committees are permanent committees in the House of Commons that scrutinise the work of individual government departments

Role

  • Made up of backbenchers

  • Committee members and chairs are elected by MPs

  • They scrutinise departments through inquiries, reports and evidence sessions

Effectiveness

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • Produce influential, evidence-based reports

  • Increase public accountability of ministers and departments

  • Recommendations are not binding

  • The government can ignore committee findings

Case Study

Departmental Select Committee Scrutiny — Brexit Secretary David Davis

A man speaking at a microphone in a government assembly, surrounded by seated colleagues in suits, with papers on a desk in front of him.
  • Following the 2016 Brexit referendum, the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) was responsible for negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the EU

  • There were concerns in Parliament about the extent to which MPs would have oversight of the Brexit process

Actions taken

  • In 2017, Brexit Secretary David Davis appeared before the Brexit Select Committee, a departmental select committee made up of backbench MPs

  • During questioning, Davis suggested that Parliament might not be given a vote on the final Brexit deal until after the UK had already left the EU

Outcomes

  • The evidence session triggered further parliamentary scrutiny, including questioning in Prime Minister’s Questions

  • The issue contributed to legal and political pressure over parliamentary sovereignty

  • The situation ultimately culminated in a Supreme Court ruling that Parliament must have a meaningful vote on Brexit

  • This reinforced the role of select committees in exposing executive intentions and strengthening accountability

3. Non-departmental select committees

  • Non-departmental select committees are committees whose remit cuts across several government departments

Role

  • Made up of backbenchers

  • Some chairs are conventionally drawn from the opposition

  • Examples include:

    • the Public Accounts Committee, which examines value for money in public spending

    • the Environmental Audit Committee, which assesses the sustainability of government policy

Effectiveness

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • High-profile committees whose reports often attract media attention

  • Can expose inefficiency and mismanagement

  • Recommendations are not binding

  • The government may choose not to act on findings

4. Backbench Business Committee (BBBC)

  • The Backbench Business Committee (BBBC) gives backbench MPs control over a portion of parliamentary time, allowing them to set the agenda independently of the government

Role

  • The committee allocates time for debates chosen by backbench MPs rather than the government

  • MPs can bid for debates by demonstrating:

    • cross-party support

    • public importance

  • Debates can cover a wide range of subjects, including public petitions, constituency issues, policy concerns and national events

  • The committee has enabled debates on issues such as:

    • military action in Libya (2011)

    • Hillsborough

    • Universal Credit

Effectiveness

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • Increases the influence of backbench MPs over the parliamentary agenda

  • Allows Parliament to debate issues the government may prefer to avoid

  • Public petitions that reach the required threshold often result in BBBC debates, enhancing democratic responsiveness

  • The committee depends on the government releasing sufficient parliamentary time, which has sometimes been reduced

  • Debates do not directly change the law

  • The government is not required to act on the outcomes of BBBC debates

Question-based scrutiny in the House of Commons

1. Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs)

Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks in Parliament
  • Prime Minister’s Questions is a weekly session in which MPs question the Prime Minister in the House of Commons

    • PMQs is more effective at public accountability than detailed examination

Role

  • A 30-minute session held once a week

  • Backbenchers are selected by ballot or by the Speaker

  • Includes:

    • six questions from the Leader of the Opposition

    • three questions from the leader of the third-largest party

Effectiveness

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • Highly visible and high-profile

  • Increases public accountability

  • Can expose weaknesses and priorities of the government

  • Often more theatrical than substantive

  • Questions may be planted by party whips

  • Limited time for detailed scrutiny

2. Minister’s Question Time (MQTs)

  • Minister’s Question Time allows MPs to question ministers about the work of their specific department

Role

  • Takes place daily for around one hour

  • Ministers attend on a rota

  • MPs can question departmental policy and performance

Effectiveness

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • Allows detailed, technical questioning

  • Direct scrutiny of departmental decision-making

  • Time-limited

  • Far lower public and media profile than PMQs

3. Urgent Questions

  • An Urgent Question (UQ) is a question granted by the Speaker to allow immediate scrutiny of a pressing issue

Role

  • Backbenchers request a UQ from the Speaker

  • If granted, it is answered on the same day

  • A minister from the relevant department must attend the Commons

Effectiveness

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • Allows rapid scrutiny of emerging issues

  • Forces ministers to respond publicly

  • Have led to resignations and major political pressure

  • Depend on the discretion of the Speaker

  • Senior ministers may avoid scrutiny by sending junior ministers

Case Study

Urgent Questions — Amber Rudd and the Windrush Scandal

Woman with short blonde hair and glasses exiting a car, wearing a burgundy coat and a lanyard with ID badge, holding a folder and pen.
Amber Rudd resigned as a result of the Windrush scandal
  • The Windrush scandal revealed that members of the Windrush generation had been wrongly detained, denied legal rights and threatened with deportation

  • These failures were linked to Home Office immigration policy and record-keeping

Actions taken

  • Backbench MPs requested Urgent Questions to force immediate scrutiny of the Home Office

  • The Speaker granted the requests

  • The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, was required to attend the House of Commons and respond to MPs on the same day

Outcomes

  • The Urgent Questions generated significant media attention

  • Political pressure on the government intensified

  • Amber Rudd resigned as Home Secretary

  • This demonstrated how Urgent Questions can provide rapid, high-impact scrutiny and force ministerial accountability

Opposition-based scrutiny

  • The opposition refers most commonly to His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the second-largest party in the House of Commons

  • The opposition plays a key role in scrutiny by:

    • holding the government to account

    • offering alternative policies

    • concentrating and coordinating scrutiny

Opposition days

  • Opposition Days are days allocated for opposition parties to control the agenda in the House of Commons

Role

  • The opposition is given 20 days per parliamentary year

  • They choose the topic of debate

Effectiveness

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • Forces the government to respond to opposition priorities

  • Highlights issues the government may wish to avoid

  • Motions are usually not binding

  • Often symbolic rather than leading to policy change

Are backbenchers effective at scrutinising the executive?

  • Backbenchers make up the majority of MPs in the House of Commons and carry out most forms of parliamentary scrutiny

    • However, the extent to which they are effective is contested

Backbenchers are effective

Backbenchers are not effective

  • Select committee membership

    • Backbenchers sit on departmental and non-departmental select committees

    • Chairs and members can influence the choice of inquiries, the questioning of witnesses and the content of committee reports

  • Private Members’ Bills

    • Backbench MPs can introduce legislation independently of the government

    • Some major UK legislation has originated from Private Members’ Bills

  • Backbench rebellion

    • Large-scale rebellions by backbench MPs can force the government to change or abandon policy, particularly when government majorities are small

  • Public Bill Committees

    • Backbench MPs scrutinise government legislation line by line and can propose amendments during the committee stage of a bill

  • Backbench Business Committee

    • The Backbench Business Committee allocates parliamentary time for debates chosen by backbench MPs, allowing issues to be raised that the government may prefer to avoid

  • The whip system

    • Strong party discipline limits the independence of backbench MPs

    • MPs seeking promotion may be reluctant to challenge their own party

  • Limited parliamentary time

    • The government controls the House of Commons timetable, restricting opportunities for backbench debate and sustained scrutiny

  • Resource constraints

    • Backbench MPs have fewer staff and less specialist support than ministers, limiting their capacity for detailed and technical scrutiny

  • Electoral pressures

    • Fear of losing their seat can deter MPs from rebelling or publicly criticising party leadership

  • Lack of formal power

    • Backbenchers cannot force legislation to pass or compel the government to act without government support

  • Media focus on the frontbench

    • Public and media attention tends to focus on ministers and party leaders, limiting the wider influence of backbench scrutiny

Unlock more, it's free!

Join the 100,000+ Students that ❤️ Save My Exams

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

Sarra Jenkins

Author: Sarra Jenkins

Expertise: Content Writer

Sarra is a highly experienced A-Level Politics educator with over two decades of teaching and examining experience. She was part of the team that wrote the Edexcel 2017 Politics Specification and currently works as a Senior Examiner. A published author of 14 textbooks and revision guides, her expertise lies in UK and US politics, exam skills, and career guidance. She continues to teach, driven by her passion for this "evolving and dynamic subject".

Lisa Eades

Reviewer: Lisa Eades

Expertise: Business Content Creator

Lisa has taught A Level, GCSE, BTEC and IBDP Business for over 20 years and is a senior Examiner for Edexcel. Lisa has been a successful Head of Department in Kent and has offered private Business tuition to students across the UK. Lisa loves to create imaginative and accessible resources which engage learners and build their passion for the subject.