This document provides 30/30 answers to Parliament questions of the Edexcel A-level specification.
The document contains five 30/30 essays + another 5 extreme depth essay plans on Parliament.
2 of the 5 essays answer the two questions on the 2023 paper which are:
Evaluate the view that the House...
Evaluate the extent to which Parliament has become more effective in holding the
government accountable (30)
It can be said that recently Parliament has become more effective in holding the government to
account. The Wright Reforms of 2009 has made select committees more effective in holding the
government to account, the recent coalition and minority governments and the House of Lords
(HOL) reforms have also allowed for them to hold the government to account more effectively.
It can be said that Parliament has become more effective at holding the government to account
due to the Wright Reforms in 2009. In 2009, the Wright Reforms were introduced which gave
select committees more powers and resources to scrutinise the work of the government. It meant
the chairs of committees were to be elected by secret ballot which strengthened the
independence of select committees. It has allowed the chairs to use their mandate to develop the
investigative nature of the committees beyond scrutiny and into policy development, allowing
parliament to hold the government to account more effectively. This has meant that if a minister
fails to provide satisfactory answers to a select committee, or demonstrates a lack of
understanding, this can have serious repercussions on their careers. This is highlighted by the
Home Affairs Committee questioned former home secretary Amber Rudd in 2018, when she
denied knowledge that the Home Office had set migrant removal targets, which conflicted with
evidence provided in a previous statement heard by the committee causing her to resign. The
Public Accounts committee was extremely fearsome in 2010-2015, lead by Margaret Hodge
where they investigated the quality of cancer care in the NHS, highlighting it was inadequate
causing the government to publicly review this once again holding the government to account.
These examples illustrate how the Wright Reforms have allowed Select Committees to be more
investigative and direct when holding the government to account. However it can be said that
select committees can be seen as quite weak even after those Wright Reforms. This is due to the
fact that they cannot force the government to adopt a motion and many of their recommendations
are ignored. Highlights how the executive can exert their dominance over parliament and shows
parliaments weaknesses in holding the government to account. First of all only 60% of
recommendations from Select Committees are actually carried out suggesting that a large part of
them are ignored. Secondly, select committees recently have found it hard to force those
ministers too stand upon them. For example in 2019, the Liaison Committee failed to question
Boris Johnson on 3 separate occasions in 2019 alone highlighting that there is still some lack of
power which will allow Select committees to become even more effective at holding the
government to account. In conclusion, although there are still some weaknesses to the Select
Committees in terms of forcing ministers to appear upon them, it is clear that they have become
more effective at holding the government to account. The fact that chairs of these committees
now have a mandate allows them to go investigate the government more thoroughly which is
highlighted by the two cases mentioned earlier.
It can be said that Parliament has become more effective recently at holding the government to
account due to there being a lack of majority governments in the past 14 years. This has made it
hard for the executive to dominate parliament due to the fact that legislation wasn’t able to be
pushed through, making it more difficult for the Conservative party to deliver their manifesto
pledges. For example, in 2019 under May’s minority government, she was unable to pass her
Brexit deal which was rejected by a record margin of 230 votes. Furthermore, the fact there has
been minority, slight majority and coalition governments, it means backbenchers have been able
, 2 of 27
to have more of an influence on what legislation gets passed. For example in 2016 under
Camerons slight majority that he won in 2015, the tories were unable to pass the Sunday Trading
Act 2016 which was going to extend the amount of hours a business could be open for on a
Sunday. A group of 27 tories partnered up with Labour and SNP MP’s to stop this legislation
through highlighting the recent significance of backbenchers being able to hold the government to
account through legislation due to the lack of great majority governments in the past 14 years.
With regards to the coalition between 2010-2015, the executive led by Cameron proposed military
intervention in Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons. The House of Commons (HOC)
voted against the proposal highlighting how the lack of majority in the HOC has led increase
scrutinisation of the executive, asserting its authority and limiting its power. However, it can be
said that through legislation, Parliament hasn’t become more effective at holding the government
to account. This is due to the great 80-seat majority that the Tories enjoy currently since the 2019
election. This has meant that the government has recently been able to push through bills without
effective scrutiny allowing the government to dominate parliament making it hard for parliament to
hold them to account. The dominance over the Commons is reinforced by the notion of the
elective dictatorship. The FPTP voting system usually produces majority governments meaning try
can govern without undergoing effective scrutiny. This is highlighted by the fact that when Tony
Blair had a 179-seat majority in 1997, he did not loose a single commons vote in his first 8 years
as PM and the fact that the Illegal Immigration Act 2023 was passed when it conflicted with
international law is it banned the right to seek asylum highlights the easy fashion in which majority
governments can push their own legislation without effective scrutiny. In conclusion, although
there is a majority government right now if we take the last 14 years into account as a whole it can
be said that Parliament has become more effective at holding the government to account due to
the lack of majority governments making it extremely hard for the government to pass through
their own laws.
The final way in which Parliament has become more effective at holding the government to
account is through the increasing effectiveness of the House of Lords (HOL). The Lords as an
unelected body, has long been seen as peripheral but since the 1999 reform, this has changed to
a significant degree. The reform removed all but 92 hereditary peers which meant the Tory
majority in the upper chamber was removed making them more independent, which has lead to
significant more defeats in the chamber. This is increased independence and willingness to take
the government on and hold them to account is underlined by the Lords defeating the
government on proposed tax credits in 2015, the numerous defeats on the Policing Act in 2022
especially in relation to the clamp down on noisy protests and the 128 defeats suffered by the
government from the Lords in the 2021-2022 parliamentary session. However, the 1949 Fixed-
Term Parliament Act means the HOL cannot block legislation for the Commons for more than a
year while conventions like the Salisbury and Financial Privilege Convention limits the power of
the HOL effectively scrutinising the government due to them not being able to amend or reject
financial mesures that were included in the governments budget and not being able to oppose
legislation promised in the governments manifesto. Furthermore the fact that the government can
still push through legislation ignoring amendments added by the Lords such as those in the Public
Order Act 2023 highlights the structural weakness the Lords has in holding the government to
account. In conclusion although the HOLs power is still somewhat structurally limited, in recent
years it still has become more effective at holding the government to account. The increased
independence and expertise since the reforms in 1999 have created more obstacles for
governments to pass legislation highlighted by Boris Johnson in 2019 trying to pas his EU
withdrawal Bill.
To conclude, over recent years, it is clear that Parliament has been able to hold the government to
account more effectively. The Wright Reforms of 2009 have led to increased investigative nature
of the committees leading to more effective holding account of the government. When it comes to
holding the government to account through legislation, the fact there haven’t been many big
majority governments in recent years has led to major obstacles in the government dominating
the legislative agenda leading to effective holding account of Parliament. When we come to the
HOL it is evident that there is still structural issues that don’t fully allow the Lords to hold the
executive to account fully but recently since the HOL reform in 1999 it is evident that there are
more hurdles when the government is trying to pass its bills through parliament highlighting the
multiple ways in how Parliament indeed has become more effective at holding the government to
account in recent years.
, 3 of 27
Evaluate the view that the House of Commons is better at performing its functions than the
House of Lords (30)
It can be said that the House of Lords more effective than the House of Commons at performing
its three main functions, which is its legislative, representative and scrutiny functions. When these
three functions are examined, the House of Lords seems to edge in front of the House of
Commons.
It is can be said that the House of Lords (HOL) is better at performing its legislative function than
the House of Commons (HOC) Performing its legislative function means there is high legislative
output but more importantly high legislative quality. One of the main reasons why the HOL is
better at perfuming its function is due to the fusion of powers which allows the government to
dominate the commons meaning, with the existing 80-seat majority in the HOC, bills are not being
carefully considered causing the legislative quality to be low. This is highlighted by the Public
Order Act passed in 2023. This law banned the right to seek asylum which conflicted with
international law highlighting the low consideration given to bills at this current stage in the HOC,
decreasing legislative quality. The Tories do not enjoy this majority in the HOL due to there being
independent cross-benchers which careful consider the legality and impact on vulnerable groups
that specific bills will produce allowing the HOL to achieve high legislative quality, a key criteria
when assessing which chamber is better at perfuming its legislative function. This is underlined by
the fact that in the 2021-22 parliamentary session, the Lords defeated the government on 128
occasions. Furthermore in January 2022, the government faced numerous defeats from the Lords
on its policing bill specifically in relation to clamp downs on noisy protests. This highlights the fact
that when laws are being passed, the Lords have the upper hand over the HOC in challenging the
legality of these laws and ensuring legislative quality, which is something that is hard to create in
the HOC due to the large majority that is there partly due to the FPTP electoral system. However it
can be said that the HOC is also effective at performing its legislative function due to the large
majority that the Tories currently have. This means that many laws can be passed allowing for
legislative output, another criteria which needs to carried out when examining the legislative
function. In the 2019-2021 parliamentary session, 100% of government bills were passed. Not
only does this highlight the high legislative output but the marge majority in the HOC allows the
government to take sometimes controversial decisions which is also another key criteria when
examining the legislative function. An example of this would be laws passed in 2022 such as the
Nationality of Borders Act which made it easier for UK citizenships to be taken away. In addition,
the fact the HOC can also sometimes achieve high legislative quality through Private Members
Bills put forward by backbenchers. Sometimes these PMBs do take into account the needs of
those vulnerable groups which was the case in the Down Syndrome bill put forward by MP Liam
Fox which ensured that health and social needs were met for those with the condition. In
conclusion, although the HOC can ensure that legislative quality is sometimes there, this is a rare.
Usually the government pushes bills through with no consideration meaning impacts of bills on
minority groups aren’t taken into account. Ultimately, to fulfil the legislative function, the chamber
needs to be consistently trying to ensure the standard of laws are high and upheld. The fact the
HOC can’t and HOL can indicates the edge that the HOL has when it comes to fulfilling the
legislative function.
Another function which needs to be examined, is the representation function. It can be said that
the HOL is more effective at this than the HOC not being socially representative, not representing
the needs of their constituents and the HOL actually directly being able to hold the government to
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller scalatotto. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $33.01. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
