Select committees, opposition and ministerial questions | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: 1 day ago
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 60 to 75 minutes
This Select committees, opposition and ministerial questions A-Level Politics revision page examines three important ways Parliament scrutinises the Executive. You will study how select committees investigate government, how the opposition challenges ministers and offers political alternatives, and how ministerial question time, including Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs), can promote accountability. These mechanisms build on the role of ordinary parliamentarians in scrutiny [Backbenchers and parliamentary scrutiny] and help explain the wider balance between Parliament and government [The Executive and Parliament].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain the purpose and work of select committees.
Analyse the strengths and limitations of select committees as mechanisms of Executive scrutiny.
Explain the role and significance of the opposition in Parliament.
Explain the purpose and nature of ministerial question time.
Assess the strengths and limitations of Prime Minister's Questions as a mechanism for holding the Executive to account.
Compare select committees, opposition scrutiny and ministerial questions in terms of their effectiveness.
Revision Notes đź“š
Select committees, opposition and ministerial questions A-Level Politics revision
Edexcel requires students to understand three closely connected aspects of Parliament's interaction with the Executive:
the work of select committees;
the role and significance of the opposition;
the purpose and nature of ministerial question time, including Prime Minister's Questions.
These mechanisms all contribute to scrutiny, meaning the examination of government decisions and actions so that ministers can be questioned and held accountable.
However, they operate in different ways.
Mechanism | Main form of scrutiny |
Select committees | Detailed investigation |
Opposition | Political challenge and alternative government |
Ministerial questions | Direct public questioning |
Prime Minister's Questions | Direct questioning of the Prime Minister |
The key evaluative question is not simply whether each mechanism exists, but how effectively it constrains and holds the Executive to account.
What are select committees?
The Edexcel specification defines select committees as:
committees responsible for scrutinising the work of government, particularly individual government departments.
Select committees therefore differ from the public bill committees studied within the legislative process [The legislative process].
A useful distinction is:
Public bill committee = examines a billSelect committee = scrutinises government
This distinction has been particularly important in Edexcel examinations.
The work of select committees
Select committees can investigate government activity in considerable detail.
The 2023 Edexcel mark scheme identifies several important committee powers and functions:
setting up inquiries;
producing reports;
requesting persons;
requesting papers and records;
scrutinising government departments;
operating, where possible, in a bipartisan manner.
This enables committees to investigate government activity more deeply than is usually possible in a short parliamentary exchange.
Select committee inquiries
A select committee can conduct an inquiry into an area connected with the work it scrutinises.
The committee can gather political information and examine government activity before reaching conclusions.
This provides an important contrast with mechanisms such as PMQs.
At PMQs, questioning takes place rapidly and publicly.
A select committee inquiry can instead involve:
identifying an issue for investigation;
gathering relevant evidence;
questioning witnesses;
examining government decisions or policy;
reaching conclusions;
publishing a report.
This makes select committees a mechanism for sustained rather than momentary scrutiny.
Evidence and witnesses
Select committees can request persons, papers and records as part of their scrutiny work.
Questioning witnesses can allow committee members to investigate:
how decisions were made;
whether government policy has worked;
whether ministers can justify their decisions;
whether problems exist within a department.
This can be particularly effective because questioning is focused on a particular subject rather than moving rapidly between unrelated political issues.
Select committee reports
After examining an issue, a committee can produce a report.
Reports can:
explain the committee's findings;
identify problems;
criticise government decisions;
recommend changes;
increase political pressure on ministers.
Edexcel's 2023 mark scheme notes that governments have to respond to committee reports, although they are not required to implement the committees' recommendations.
This creates both a strength and a limitation.
Strength:Â government must engage with parliamentary scrutiny.
Limitation:Â a committee cannot necessarily force ministers to accept what it recommends.
Why select committees can be effective
There are several arguments that select committees provide particularly strong scrutiny.
Detailed investigation
Committees can spend much more time examining a particular issue than is available during normal parliamentary questioning.
This allows them to identify weaknesses that may not emerge during short Commons exchanges.
Development of expertise
Committee members can build detailed knowledge of the policy area they scrutinise.
Edexcel's 2023 mark scheme identifies the development of committee expertise as one reason their scrutiny can be effective.
This can improve the quality of questioning and make it more difficult for ministers to rely on broad political answers.
Greater independence
Select committees can be less dominated by government-versus-opposition confrontation than debates in the Commons chamber.
The 2023 mark scheme notes that committee members may operate in a bipartisan way and identifies greater independence as an important potential strength.
Members from different parties may therefore cooperate when investigating a common concern.
Public and media attention
Committee investigations can expose problems in government policy and generate media coverage.
Public attention can add political force to recommendations even when the committee cannot legally compel the government to implement them.
This creates an important form of political accountability.
The significance of the Wright reforms
Edexcel mark schemes and examiner reports repeatedly identify the Wright reforms as increasing the significance and independence of select committees.
The key examination significance is that reforms increased the independence and profile of committees, helping strengthen their ability to scrutinise the Executive.
The 2021 mark scheme also highlighted greater independence among committee chairs and the role of the Liaison Committee in providing additional scrutiny of the Prime Minister.
You do not need to turn an answer into a history of committee reform. The useful analytical point is:
greater committee independence can reduce Executive control over parliamentary scrutiny.
Different select committees
The 2023 examiner report praised stronger candidates who showed a clear understanding of different committees, including:
departmental select committees;
the Public Accounts Committee;
the Standards Committee;
the Liaison Committee.
For this lesson, the central specification requirement remains understanding the work of select committees as a scrutiny mechanism, rather than memorising an extensive catalogue of committees.
Departmental select committees
These scrutinise the work of government departments.
They are particularly useful for sustained examination of government policy and administration.
Liaison Committee
Edexcel assessment material identifies the Liaison Committee as providing additional scrutiny of the Prime Minister.
This illustrates how committee scrutiny can reach even the most senior parts of the Executive.
Limitations of select committees
Select committees are important, but they do not possess unlimited power.
No enforcement power over recommendations
One major limitation is that committees cannot normally force government to carry out the recommendations in their reports.
Edexcel's 2023 mark scheme emphasises that although governments respond to reports, they do not have to act upon them.
This means a government can disagree with a committee's conclusions.
Limited time and resources
Committees cannot investigate every possible issue.
Their resources and time are limited, so scrutiny must be selective.
A government department will therefore undertake far more activity than a committee can investigate fully.
Party politics can remain influential
Select committees may work most effectively where members cooperate across party lines.
However, Edexcel's 2023 mark scheme notes that party politics can still affect:
what committees investigate;
how witnesses are questioned;
the extent of criticism in reports.
Bipartisan scrutiny is therefore a strength when it occurs, but it cannot always be assumed.
Scrutiny may occur after events
Committees may investigate decisions after they have already been taken or problems after they have emerged.
This can strengthen accountability, but it may be too late to prevent the original decision.
Overall effectiveness of select committees
Select committees are strongest where the aim is:
detailed investigation;
evidence-based scrutiny;
sustained questioning;
development of specialist knowledge.
They are weaker where effectiveness is defined as possessing the direct power to force government to change policy.
This distinction between scrutiny and control is essential.
A committee may expose serious weaknesses and still be unable to compel ministers to accept its recommendations.
What is the opposition?
The Edexcel specification defines the opposition as:
the MPs and Lords who are not members of the governing party or parties.
Opposition is therefore broader than the largest opposition party alone.
However, examination material also refers to the Official Opposition, which occupies a particularly prominent role in challenging the government.
The opposition's role is closely connected to understanding political parties within representative democracy [Political parties: functions and features].
The role of the opposition
The opposition performs several important parliamentary functions.
It can:
challenge government decisions;
question ministers;
criticise government policy;
offer alternative arguments and policies;
use parliamentary debates to highlight weaknesses;
participate in votes against government proposals;
use PMQs and other ministerial questions to demand explanations.
The opposition therefore provides an organised political challenge to the Executive.
Opposition and accountability
A functioning opposition creates an expectation that government decisions will be contested.
Ministers know that opposition politicians can:
identify inconsistencies;
challenge policy failures;
question the justification for decisions;
draw public attention to controversial issues.
This scrutiny can influence the political costs faced by government.
Even where the opposition cannot defeat the government in a vote, it may still make government politically accountable through public criticism.
Opposition as an alternative government
An opposition does more than criticise.
Its wider significance is that it can present itself as an alternative to the governing party.
This gives opposition scrutiny a distinctive political character.
Select committees generally seek to investigate government activity.
The opposition has a direct political interest in demonstrating that:
government is performing poorly;
different policies are possible;
voters should eventually support an alternative.
This creates both a strength and a weakness.
Strength:Â the opposition has a strong incentive to scrutinise government.
Weakness:Â scrutiny can become highly partisan.
Parliamentary advantages of the Official Opposition
Edexcel's 2023 mark scheme identifies several advantages available to the Official Opposition, including:
additional funding;
a privileged parliamentary position;
an important role in PMQs;
Opposition days.
These resources strengthen its ability to challenge ministers.
Opposition days
Edexcel assessment material identifies Opposition days as one mechanism enabling the Official Opposition to hold government to account.
They provide opportunities for opposition parties to bring political issues before the Commons and require government to respond publicly to criticism.
Their significance is therefore linked to agenda-setting.
Government normally has substantial influence over parliamentary business, so opportunities for the opposition to determine subjects for debate give it an additional scrutiny mechanism.
What determines whether the opposition is effective?
The existence of an opposition does not guarantee equally effective scrutiny under every government.
Several factors matter.
Leadership
Edexcel's 2023 mark scheme identifies the effectiveness of the Leader of the Opposition as one factor affecting opposition scrutiny.
A strong leader may be better able to:
communicate criticism clearly;
exploit government weaknesses;
perform effectively at PMQs;
attract media attention.
Party unity
A united opposition can concentrate political pressure on the government.
A divided opposition may instead spend significant political energy on its own internal disagreements.
Government strength
An opposition facing a government with a large Commons majority may find it difficult to defeat ministers in parliamentary votes.
However, it can still scrutinise and expose weaknesses.
Media coverage
Opposition scrutiny can become more significant when criticism gains substantial public and media attention.
The 2023 mark scheme explicitly identifies media attention as an important factor in the effectiveness of scrutiny mechanisms.
Limits on opposition power
The opposition frequently faces a simple numerical problem.
If the government has a large and disciplined Commons majority, opposition MPs alone cannot normally defeat it.
Government may therefore:
win most votes;
advance its legislative programme;
rely on its own MPs to resist opposition challenges.
This means the opposition may be more effective at political scrutiny than at exercising direct parliamentary control.
Its influence becomes much greater when government backbenchers also rebel, linking this topic directly to backbench influence over the Executive [Backbenchers and parliamentary scrutiny].
Ministerial question time
The Edexcel specification requires students to understand the purpose and nature of ministerial question time, including Prime Minister's Questions.
Ministerial questions provide MPs with an opportunity to question members of the Executive directly.
Their basic purpose is accountability.
Ministers are required to explain and defend government actions publicly in Parliament.
Why ministerial questions matter
Ministerial questions can:
demand explanations from government;
raise constituency or national concerns;
expose weaknesses in policy;
place pressure on ministers;
provide information;
publicise disagreements;
draw attention to issues that government might prefer not to emphasise.
They therefore connect Parliament's representative role to its scrutiny role.
An MP may raise a concern originating from constituents and then require the responsible minister to address it.
Ministerial questions as direct scrutiny
Unlike a committee report, ministerial questions create a direct exchange between Parliament and the Executive.
This has several advantages.
Ministers must respond publicly
Government is visibly required to account for itself within Parliament.
Scrutiny can be immediate
Questions can raise current political issues rather than waiting for a lengthy committee inquiry.
Public attention can increase pressure
A difficult exchange can receive wider media attention, potentially increasing the political cost to government.
However, immediacy can come at the expense of depth.
Prime Minister's Questions
Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs)Â are the most prominent form of ministerial questioning.
They provide an opportunity for the Prime Minister to be questioned in the House of Commons.
The significance of PMQs comes partly from the importance of the Prime Minister within the structure of the Executive [Structure, role and powers of the Executive].
The Leader of the Opposition has a particularly prominent role in questioning the Prime Minister.
Why PMQs can be an effective scrutiny mechanism
There are several arguments in favour of PMQs.
Direct accountability of the Prime Minister
PMQs subjects the most senior member of the Executive to direct parliamentary questioning.
This demonstrates that even a powerful Prime Minister must appear before Parliament and defend government actions.
Regular political challenge
The government cannot simply avoid parliamentary criticism.
PMQs provides a repeated opportunity for MPs, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, to challenge government.
Media attention
Edexcel's 2023 mark scheme identifies the considerable media coverage generated by PMQs as one of its major strengths.
This matters because parliamentary scrutiny can reach an audience beyond Parliament.
A damaging exchange can affect:
government reputation;
public perceptions of competence;
perceptions of the Prime Minister;
the political agenda.
Opposition scrutiny
The format gives the Leader of the Opposition an important opportunity to challenge the Prime Minister directly.
This can enable competing political arguments to be presented clearly.
Limitations of PMQs
Despite its visibility, PMQs can also be criticised as a weak form of detailed scrutiny.
Highly partisan
The 2023 Edexcel mark scheme describes PMQs and ministerial questions as potentially partisan and adversarial, producing limited accountability compared with select committee investigation.
Party competition can encourage participants to focus on political performance rather than detailed examination.
Limited depth
Questions and answers are much shorter than a select committee inquiry.
This may make it difficult to:
investigate complex policy in detail;
pursue lengthy chains of evidence;
examine documents;
build specialist expertise.
Government can defend rather than concede
Being questioned does not mean that the Prime Minister or ministers must agree with criticism.
The Executive may defend its record rather than make immediate policy changes.
Political theatre
The adversarial nature of PMQs can create a great deal of political confrontation without necessarily producing detailed information.
This is the distinction sometimes captured in the examiner material as providing more heat than light.
The crucial analytical question is therefore:
Does publicity make scrutiny stronger, or does adversarial political performance make scrutiny shallower?
Urgent Questions
Edexcel mark schemes and examiner reports also discuss Urgent Questions as part of parliamentary scrutiny.
Urgent Questions can require ministers to respond in Parliament to matters judged sufficiently urgent.
Recent Edexcel assessment material has treated their increased use as evidence that Commons scrutiny can be strengthened by requiring government to address important developments publicly.
For this lesson, the key significance is that questioning mechanisms can provide rapid parliamentary accountability, complementing the more detailed scrutiny offered by committees.
Comparing select committees and ministerial questions
These mechanisms have quite different strengths.
Select committees | Ministerial questions and PMQs |
Detailed | Immediate |
Evidence-based | Direct |
Can build expertise | Highly visible |
Often less partisan | Often more adversarial |
Can question witnesses at length | Short exchanges |
Produce reports | Produce immediate political accountability |
May receive less attention | PMQs receives substantial media attention |
Cannot compel government to accept recommendations | Cannot usually force immediate policy change |
This makes it difficult to identify one mechanism as universally superior.
They perform different forms of scrutiny.
Which is stronger: depth or publicity?
Suppose a select committee produces a highly detailed investigation of a government department but attracts little public attention.
At the same time, a difficult PMQs exchange attracts major media coverage.
Which has produced more effective scrutiny?
The answer depends on the criterion being used.
If effectiveness means detailed examination
The select committee is likely to be stronger.
If effectiveness means immediate political pressure
PMQs may be stronger.
If effectiveness means forcing policy change
Either mechanism may succeed or fail depending on circumstances.
This is why strong Edexcel evaluation compares mechanisms using a clear criterion rather than simply declaring one "better".
Comparing select committees and the opposition
The opposition has some advantages over committees.
It has a strong political incentive to expose government weaknesses and a privileged position in parliamentary debate and PMQs.
However, committees can have advantages because:
scrutiny may be less partisan;
members can develop expertise;
cross-party cooperation may strengthen conclusions;
investigations can examine evidence in depth.
The 2023 mark scheme explicitly identifies this comparison as central to assessing whether select committees are the most effective Commons scrutiny mechanism.
Comparing all three mechanisms
Criterion | Select committees | Opposition | Ministerial questions / PMQs |
Depth of scrutiny | Strong | Variable | More limited |
Speed | Slower | Can respond quickly | Strong |
Expertise | Strong | Depends on issue and individual | Limited by format |
Independence from party politics | Can be stronger | Low | Often low |
Media visibility | Variable | Often substantial | Particularly strong for PMQs |
Ability to force policy change | Limited formal power | Depends on parliamentary numbers | Limited formal power |
Public accountability | Strong when investigations gain attention | Strong | Very strong visibility |
Direct questioning of Executive | Yes | Yes | Central purpose |
The relationship between scrutiny mechanisms
These mechanisms should not be viewed in isolation.
They can reinforce one another.
For example:
a select committee identifies a problem;
its findings attract media attention;
the opposition uses those findings to criticise government;
ministers or the Prime Minister face questions in Parliament;
political pressure on the Executive increases.
Effective parliamentary scrutiny can therefore be cumulative.
A committee may provide detailed evidence, while opposition politicians and PMQs provide the political visibility.
Government majority and scrutiny
The strength of scrutiny is also affected by the wider balance of power in Parliament.
A large government majority may make opposition victories in votes unlikely.
However, the same majority does not entirely remove:
select committee investigation;
ministerial questioning;
PMQs;
public criticism.
Edexcel's 2023 mark scheme suggests that select committees may become especially significant where a government has a large majority or the opposition is weak, because committee scrutiny can remain effective despite the government's voting strength.
This reinforces an important distinction:
The ability to defeat government and the ability to scrutinise government are not the same.
Scrutiny versus control
Parliament can successfully hold ministers accountable without necessarily controlling their decisions.
Select committees can expose problems.
The opposition can criticise ministers.
PMQs can force the Prime Minister publicly to defend government.
None necessarily guarantees that government policy will change.
A strong evaluation should therefore ask:
Did the mechanism expose information?
Did it require government to explain itself?
Did it increase political pressure?
Did it lead to policy change?
Could the Executive simply ignore or withstand the criticism?
Different answers may be reached depending on which measure of effectiveness is given most importance.
Which mechanism is most effective?
The 2023 Edexcel examination asked students directly whether select committees were the most effective way for the Commons to hold the Executive to account.
The mark scheme supported arguments on both sides.
Case for select committees
They may be most effective because:
investigations can be detailed;
committees can request persons, papers and records;
members develop expertise;
scrutiny may be bipartisan;
greater independence can strengthen questioning;
reports can expose significant problems.
Case against select committees
Other mechanisms may be stronger because:
committees cannot enforce their recommendations;
time and resources are limited;
party politics can still affect their work;
the opposition possesses significant parliamentary opportunities;
PMQs creates major public and media attention;
questioning mechanisms can respond more quickly to political events.
The strongest conclusion is therefore likely to depend on what scrutiny is intended to achieve.
Overall assessment of parliamentary scrutiny
Select committees, the opposition and ministerial questions all provide meaningful checks on the Executive, but none is independently capable of ensuring complete government accountability.
Select committees are particularly strong at detailed and sustained scrutiny, but their lack of enforcement power limits their ability to make government act.
The opposition provides a continuous organised political challenge and can offer alternative policies, but its effectiveness is heavily affected by party unity, leadership and the government's Commons majority.
Ministerial questions and PMQs provide direct and highly visible accountability, but their adversarial and time-limited nature can reduce the depth of scrutiny.
The strongest overall judgement is therefore:
Select committees generally provide the deepest scrutiny, while opposition and ministerial questions provide more immediate and politically visible scrutiny.
These mechanisms are most effective when they work together. Committee investigation can provide evidence, opposition politicians can develop the political challenge, and parliamentary questions can force ministers to respond publicly.
Their combined importance is central to assessing whether the Executive can dominate Parliament, a debate developed fully in the relationship between the two branches [The Executive and Parliament].
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Select committee | A committee responsible for scrutinising the work of government, particularly individual government departments. | Use when explaining detailed parliamentary investigation of the Executive. |
Opposition | MPs and Lords who are not members of the governing party or parties. | Use when analysing organised parliamentary challenge to the government. |
Scrutiny | Examination and questioning of government decisions, actions and policies. | Use as the central criterion when comparing parliamentary accountability mechanisms. |
Ministerial question time | Parliamentary questioning through which ministers are required to answer and defend government activity. | Use when assessing direct accountability of government to Parliament. |
Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) | Parliamentary questioning in which the Prime Minister is directly challenged in the House of Commons. | Use when evaluating the visibility, immediacy and limitations of parliamentary scrutiny. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint:Â Compare mechanisms rather than discussing only one. The 2023 examiner report found that stronger answers assessed select committees against PMQs, ministerial questions, urgent questions and other Commons mechanisms. Weaker responses often knew one method well but failed to make the required comparison.
Examiner hint:Â Know what select committees actually do. Stronger candidates demonstrated accurate understanding of departmental committees and other committee scrutiny before attempting to judge their effectiveness.
Examiner hint:Â Keep your evidence within the institution named by the question. In 2023, some answers to a question about the House of Commons drifted into scrutiny by the Lords, courts or electorate. That lost focus on the specific question set.
Examiner hint:Â Use specialist political terminology accurately. The 2023 examiner report specifically praised responses that used the key terminology of the specification clearly when comparing scrutiny mechanisms.
Examiner hint:Â Do not confuse a parliamentary vote of no confidence with a political party's internal procedure for removing its leader. The 2023 report identified this as a continuing area of confusion.
Examiner hint:Â Build comparisons into each paragraph. Strong responses compared the relative strengths of mechanisms and then developed those comparisons into substantiated conclusions rather than saving all evaluation for the final paragraph.
Examiner hint:Â Think about the role of the media when assessing PMQs. Edexcel mark schemes identify media visibility as one of the strongest arguments for question time, while also recognising that its partisan nature can reduce the depth of scrutiny.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Confusing select committees with public bill committees
Why this is incorrect: Select committees scrutinise government, particularly departments. Public bill committees examine proposed legislation in detail.
How to improve: Remember:
Select committee → Executive scrutinyPublic bill committee → legislative scrutiny
Mistake: Saying select committees can force government to accept their recommendations
Why this is incorrect: Edexcel's mark scheme makes clear that although governments respond to reports, they do not have to act on committee recommendations.
How to improve: Describe select committees as capable of investigating, exposing, recommending and pressuring, rather than automatically commanding government action.
Mistake: Treating opposition as meaning only the Leader of the Opposition
Why this is incorrect: The specification defines opposition more broadly as MPs and Lords who are not members of the governing party or parties.
How to improve: Use opposition for the wider non-government parliamentary group and be more specific when discussing the particular role of the Official Opposition or its leader.
Mistake: Assuming an opposition is ineffective whenever it cannot defeat government
Why this is incorrect: Opposition has scrutiny, accountability and political functions beyond winning parliamentary divisions.
How to improve: Consider its ability to expose weaknesses, question ministers, set political alternatives and generate public pressure.
Mistake: Assuming high media attention automatically makes PMQs effective
Why this is incorrect: Visibility can increase accountability, but adversarial political exchanges may provide less detailed scrutiny than committee investigation.
How to improve: Always evaluate both sides:
visibility and immediacy versus depth and quality of scrutiny.
Mistake: Saying PMQs is the only form of ministerial questioning
Why this is incorrect: The specification refers to ministerial question time including PMQs. PMQs is therefore an important example within a broader scrutiny mechanism.
How to improve: Discuss ministerial questioning generally before evaluating the distinctive importance of PMQs.
Mistake: Measuring scrutiny only by whether government changes policy
Why this is incorrect: Scrutiny can still be meaningful if it exposes information, demands explanations and increases accountability without producing immediate policy change.
How to improve: Use several criteria, such as depth, publicity, independence, responsiveness and policy impact.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
The shorter questions below build towards the 30-mark evaluative questions used in Edexcel A-Level Politics.
Question 1
According to the Edexcel specification, what is a select committee? (1 mark)
Question 2
Define the opposition. (2 marks)
Question 3
Explain two activities undertaken by select committees when scrutinising government. (4 marks)
Question 4
Explain two reasons why select committees may provide effective scrutiny of the Executive. (6 marks)
Question 5
Explain two ways in which the opposition can hold the government to account. (6 marks)
Question 6
Explain one strength and one limitation of Prime Minister's Questions as a mechanism for holding the Executive to account. (6 marks)
Question 7
Consider the following situation.
A parliamentary committee conducts a lengthy investigation into a government department and publishes a critical report. Ministers reject several of its recommendations. The Leader of the Opposition then uses the report to challenge the Prime Minister during PMQs, and the exchange receives extensive media attention.
Analyse what this situation suggests about the relationship between different mechanisms of parliamentary scrutiny. (8 marks)
Question 8
Evaluate the view that select committees are more effective than the opposition and ministerial questions in holding the Executive to account. (30 marks)
Answers and Mark Scheme
Question 1
Answer:Â A committee responsible for scrutinising the work of government, particularly individual government departments. (1 mark)
Question 2
Award up to 2 marks.
The opposition consists of MPs and Lords who are not members of the governing party or parties.
Question 3
Award up to 2 marks per explained activity, to a maximum of 4 marks.
Possible answers include:
setting up inquiries into government activity;
questioning witnesses;
requesting persons, papers and records;
investigating government departments;
producing reports containing findings and recommendations.
Question 4
Award up to 3 marks per developed reason, to a maximum of 6 marks.
Possible answers include:
Detailed scrutiny: Committees can investigate issues over a sustained period, allowing more detailed examination than short parliamentary exchanges.
Expertise: Members can develop specialist knowledge, improving the quality of questioning.
Greater independence: Committees can operate in a more bipartisan manner than highly adversarial Commons debates.
Public accountability: Reports can expose weaknesses and attract media attention, increasing political pressure on government.
Question 5
Award up to 3 marks per developed reason, to a maximum of 6 marks.
Possible answers include:
Parliamentary questioning: Opposition MPs can question ministers and use PMQs to challenge the Prime Minister publicly.
Debate: The opposition can use parliamentary debate to criticise government policy and present alternative arguments.
Opposition days: These provide opportunities for opposition parties to determine subjects for parliamentary debate and require government to respond.
Political alternative: The opposition can challenge government while presenting itself as an alternative administration.
Question 6
Award up to 3 marks for the strength and 3 marks for the limitation.
Possible strength: PMQs provides highly visible direct accountability because the Prime Minister must answer questions publicly, with substantial media attention increasing political pressure.
Possible limitation: PMQs can be highly adversarial and partisan, meaning exchanges may concentrate more on political performance than detailed scrutiny of government policy.
Question 7
A strong response should recognise that the mechanisms can reinforce each other.
The select committee:
provides detailed investigation;
gathers evidence;
produces findings;
creates an evidence base for criticism.
However, it cannot force ministers to accept all its recommendations.
The opposition then:
uses those findings to challenge government politically;
increases pressure on ministers.
PMQs:
forces a direct public response from the Prime Minister;
attracts wider media attention.
Judgement: The situation demonstrates that no single mechanism necessarily provides complete scrutiny. Committee investigation supplies depth, while opposition and PMQs can give the findings greater political visibility and pressure.
Question 8
30 marks: AO1 10, AO2 10, AO3 10
Strong responses should compare the mechanisms directly.
Arguments that select committees are more effective:
they conduct detailed inquiries;
they can request persons, papers and records;
members can develop expertise;
scrutiny may be more bipartisan;
committee independence has been strengthened;
reports can expose serious weaknesses in government;
sustained examination may reveal more than short ministerial questions.
Arguments that other mechanisms may be more effective:
select committees cannot force government to implement recommendations;
committee time and resources are limited;
party politics can still influence committee activity;
the Official Opposition receives funding and parliamentary opportunities to challenge government;
an effective and united opposition can maintain continuous political pressure;
PMQs provides direct scrutiny of the Prime Minister;
ministerial questioning can respond immediately to political developments;
PMQs can attract extensive media coverage.
Analysis and evaluation:
A strong essay should establish clear criteria for effectiveness.
For depth and quality of investigation, select committees are likely to be strongest.
For speed and immediate accountability, ministerial questions may be stronger.
For political challenge and offering an alternative government, opposition scrutiny has advantages that committees do not possess.
Possible overall judgement: Select committees are usually the strongest individual mechanism for detailed scrutiny because of their inquiries, expertise and capacity for sustained examination. However, their lack of enforcement powers means they are most effective when their findings generate wider political pressure. The opposition and PMQs can therefore complement committee scrutiny by turning detailed findings into immediate public accountability. The most effective constraint on the Executive is consequently the combined operation of several parliamentary mechanisms rather than any one acting alone.
Comments