Parliament (Edexcel A Level Politics): Exam Questions

Source 1

If the government cannot maintain the support of their own backbenchers, their bills will be defeated in the Commons; so the government shape their proposed legislation accordingly and make concessions to win support. In public bill committees, evidence from outside experts and proposals from non-government parliamentarians can alert ministers to where changes to the legislation are needed.

In the House of Lords, there is more time for detailed scrutiny, and many experts, whose contributions often worry government. Crossbenchers are particularly feared since they can put forward proposals that sometimes gain widespread support across both Houses. However, most amendments to legislation are made by Ministers, which can be interpreted as a sign of government reflection, a response to detailed parliamentary debate and the calculation of what proposals are most likely to attract majority support.

Government bills are rarely defeated and generally only government-proposed amendments succeed in the Commons, where the government majority prevails. There is also a lack of time for scrutiny and a lack of specialism within the partywhipped public bill committees. The House of Lords has limited powers due to its unelected nature but since there is no government majority, it does sometimes make passing legislation difficult for government.

Source 1

In the mid-20th century, most backbenchers loyally did whatever the front benchers told them to do. Party loyalty was all important, and between 1945 and 1970 there were no government defeats due to backbench rebellions. Recently, May’s government was defeated more often in the Commons than Cameron’s, losing the vote on her ‘Brexit’ deal in January 2019 by 230 votes, after 118 Conservative MPs rebelled.

Backbenchers are asserting parliament’s sovereignty. Whips are weaker and MPs are more willing to defy their party, claiming to ‘represent’ their constituents instead. Governments avoid defeats by backing down - as May did over additional grammar schools. MPs increasingly use select committees, urgent questions and the Backbench Business Committee to exert their influence.

However, MPs continue to undertake constituency work, holding regular surgeries, representing their geographical area. They debate topical issues of the day. They act on constituents’ problems by asking questions, writing to ministers, voting for new legislation where needed and legitimising parliamentary decisions.

Some argue that Brexit is very much a ‘one-off’, with a deeply divided minority government and a divided opposition. If so, government dominance may soon be restored. Or, alternatively, perhaps things will never be the same again.

Article 1

The principle of accountability to Parliament when it comes to war making was established in 2003, when the Labour party had a large majority, and that principle must now be enshrined in law. … Currently, the Government of the day, of whichever hue, can, under the powers of the royal prerogative, deploy our armed forces without obtaining parliamentary consent for that action. It is important that our armed forces know that they have the democratic backing of Parliament and the support of the public for any action that they undertake. … Those rights and responsibilities are not currently codified by law and, as we have discovered in recent days, cannot be guaranteed by convention alone. … In effect, 17 countries have the rights of their Parliament to approve military action enshrined in their own laws. … A war powers Act could specify at what point in decision-making processes [Members of Parliament] should be involved as well as retain the right of Ministers to act in an emergency, or in the country's self-defence. … It is right that Parliament has the power to support, or to stop, the Government taking planned military action. … The Executive must be the servant of Parliament, not the other way around.

Source: extract taken from an emergency debate, 'Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval', House of Commons, 17 April 2018, Hansard vol. 639. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

There is no graver decision for a Prime Minister than to commit our servicemen and women to combat operations. … Let me begin by being absolutely clear about the Government's policy in relation to the convention that has developed, because there is a fundamental difference between the policy and the perception of it that is conveyed in today's motion. The Cabinet manual states: 'In 2011, the Government acknowledged that a convention had developed in Parliament that before troops were committed the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter and said that it proposed to observe that convention except where there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.' … [The Government's position was set out further in 2016:] 'In observing the convention, we must ensure that the ability of our armed forces to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations, is not compromised… If we were to attempt to clarify more precisely circumstances in which we would consult Parliament before taking military action, we would constrain the operational flexibility of the armed forces'. … I am very clear that the Government follow that convention, but the assumption that the convention means that no decision can be taken without parliamentary approval is incorrect—it is the wrong interpretation of the convention.

Source: extract taken from an emergency debate, 'Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval', House of Commons, 17 April 2018, Hansard vol. 639. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 1

When we are elected by our constituents, they are putting their trust in us. They are trusting us not only to be a strong advocate for the area that we represent, but to stand by our manifesto pledges, both at a local level and those of the political party we represent. We stand by the values and commitments of the party we represent.

… [A]t every voting booth across the country our electors are greeted not only by our own names but by our party names and party logos. They put their cross in the box against a name and a party that they wish to represent them. A proportion of people out there will, of course, vote for the individual who they feel is most committed to representing them, but they are also casting their vote for a political party.

… [A] defection at the local constituency level should trigger a by-election, which will ultimately restore the voters' ability to decide who they want to represent them, whether that is the individual who has changed political party or someone else.

Source: extract taken from a Westminster Hall debate, 'Member Defections: Automatic By-elections' (speech of Robbie Moore), House of Commons, 16 March 2026, Hansard vol. 782. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

… Ultimately, we should have enough faith in the British public that they will assess the decision that their [Member of Parliament] has made in defecting to another party and have their say. Some have won after defecting to another party; others have lost. Ultimately, the public will weigh it all up and pass their judgment.

… It has been a long-standing constitutional principle in this country, most famously put forward by Edmund Burke, that [Members of Parliament] should deliberate and use their reason and judgment … and not simply be a delegate of either party or populist opinion. A by-election on the basis of a defection would undermine that principle.

If we mandated that a [Member of Parliament] must lose their seat the moment they leave their party, we would fundamentally alter the nature of our democracy. We would also shift from a system in which a [Member of Parliament's] first responsibility is to their constituents, to one where, once elected, they are accountable to their party's leaders in Westminster.

Source: extract taken from a Westminster Hall debate, 'Member Defections: Automatic By-elections' (reply of the Minister), House of Commons, 16 March 2026, Hansard vol. 782. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 1

… [W]e are debating two unprecedented reports from the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Never before have two committees acted in tandem to draw attention to a serious parliamentary problem. … [W]hen laws are passed without proper parliamentary scrutiny, they cease to be just technical, as they threaten the rights and freedoms of the individual. Both our reports express considerable alarm and criticise the increasing tendency of all Governments in recent years to adopt procedures that effectively bypass Parliament's role in the legislative process.

… [T]his time we did a comprehensive study and looked at these issues going back 90 years, and we found that the problems identified have been worsening over the last 20 years. The result of this trend has been an increase in the power of the Government at the expense of Parliament.

… The combined parliamentary experience of our committee members is over 520 years … That does not make us experts, of course … It just means that some of us have seen these problems growing for a considerable time.

Source: extract taken from a House of Lords debate, 'Democracy Denied (DPRRC Report)' (speech of Lord Blencathra), 12 January 2023, Hansard vol. 826. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

I do not come to defend big Bills. I share the view of the ancient Greek poet that a big Bill is a big evil. Large Bills can certainly frustrate the process of orderly discussion just as much as skeleton—as they are described—Bills may. We need to reflect collectively on both of those matters and whether either of those extremes are the right way to go forward.

… In the last few years, all departments have been asked to appoint a Minister and senior official to be responsible for secondary legislation. … All statutory instruments must now go through a [Parliamentary Business and Legislation] triage process, which is relatively new. Departments are given laying dates to limit the number of statutory instruments having to be considered at any one time by Parliament. Through this, we try to ensure that there is a steady flow of statutory instruments being laid before Parliament to facilitate scrutiny by your Lordships. These changes have strengthened the Government's approach to secondary legislation.

… [The former Leader of the House of Commons] wrote … setting out explicitly that "Bills with substantial powers, though sometimes essential, should not be a tool to cover imperfect policy development."

Source: extract taken from a House of Lords debate, 'Democracy Denied (DPRRC Report)' (reply of the Lord Privy Seal), 12 January 2023, Hansard vol. 826. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 1

The Backbench Business Committee continues to meet its mandate to facilitate debates that matter to backbench Members and their constituents. Over the last 15 years, we have approved debates in the House of Commons Chamber that would not otherwise have taken place, and which have had a demonstrable impact on Government policy and public discourse.

We recognise that, in some respects, the Wright Committee envisaged a more radical and confrontational Backbench Business Committee, and there are things we will reflect on doing differently as we move through this Parliament. But the Committee rightly recognises the political realities and ambitions of all backbench Members in how it undertakes its work.

… [T]he Backbench Business Committee has proven itself to be a robust and essential parliamentary institution. … [W]e call for … [b]ackbench business throughout the sitting week: The Government should provide more time for backbench business on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, including shorter 90-minute debates that could take place before or after Government business.

Source: extract taken from the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee, 15th anniversary of the Backbench Business Committee, HC 1548, 16 December 2025. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

The Government considers all debates scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee … a valuable opportunity for the House to inform and scrutinise Government policy. It is the Government's view that the best way in which Ministers can set out their position towards a subject or motion is during the debate itself, in the Minister's closing remarks that respond to the points that have been raised.

… Standing Order No. 14 gives government business precedence, an important principle in ensuring the Government can effectively deliver its legislative programme. Such a change to Standing Orders would be too prescriptive and impact the ability of the Government to effectively schedule its business. Thursday is a sitting day like any other in the week, and therefore Members should expect to be in Parliament to participate in any business set down for this day …

… The Modernisation Committee may decide to consider this as part of any work looking at use of time in the Chamber and Westminster Hall.

Source: extract taken from the Government Response to the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee, HC 1740, 5 March 2026. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.