The Relationship Between the Executive & Parliament

The relationship between the Executive and Parliament is one of the defining features of the UK’s uncodified constitution. At the heart of British politics lies a delicate balance between government and legislature, accountability and authority, scrutiny and control. This section will explore the nature of the relationship between the Executive and Parliament, assess the means through which Parliament holds the Executive to account, evaluate the Executive’s efforts to assert dominance over Parliament, and consider how the balance of power between these two branches has evolved in recent years.

The Relationship Between the Executive and Parliament

The UK operates under a system of parliamentary government, where the Executive (the Prime Minister and Cabinet) is drawn from, and is formally accountable to, Parliament. This fusion of powers is distinct from the separation of powers found in presidential systems. The Prime Minister and ministers must command the confidence of the House of Commons to govern, with Parliament providing both legitimacy and oversight.

Parliament's role is to make laws, grant supply (i.e., taxation and spending), scrutinise government activity, and hold ministers accountable. The Executive, meanwhile, sets the political agenda, proposes legislation, and administers the state. The relationship is therefore both cooperative and adversarial: Parliament enables government but also constrains it.

The Influence and Effectiveness of Parliament in Holding the Executive to Account

Parliament possesses a range of formal and informal mechanisms for scrutinising the Executive and holding it to account.

Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) and Ministerial Question Time

Weekly Prime Minister’s Questions provide a high-profile opportunity for MPs to interrogate the Prime Minister directly. Question times for other ministers serve a similar function, enabling Parliament to probe government actions. While critics argue that PMQs are too scripted and adversarial, they nonetheless force the Executive to justify its policies in public.

Committees

Select Committees have become increasingly important in scrutinising government policy and administration. Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee and departmental select committees can summon ministers and civil servants for questioning, demand evidence, and publish influential reports. Their work is often less partisan and more in-depth than that of the main chamber, enhancing Parliament’s capacity to hold the Executive to account.

Debates and Motions

Parliamentary debates on government policy, legislation, and topical issues provide a forum for scrutiny. Opposition days and backbench business debates allow non-government MPs to set the agenda. Votes on motions, though often non-binding, can embarrass the government and influence policy direction.

Votes of No Confidence and Confidence Motions

The ultimate mechanism for holding the Executive to account is the ability to remove it from office. A successful vote of no confidence in the Commons, under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (now repealed), or through established convention, can force a government to resign or trigger a general election. Though rare, the mere existence of this power underpins parliamentary sovereignty.

Legislative Scrutiny and Amendments

Parliament can scrutinise, amend, and reject government bills. The House of Lords, although unelected, often plays a key role in revising legislation, proposing amendments, and requiring the government to think again. Although the Commons can override the Lords, this process enhances scrutiny.

Written Questions and Adjournment Debates

MPs and peers can submit written questions, forcing ministers to provide information and explanations on the public record. Adjournment debates allow MPs to raise specific issues and secure ministerial responses.

Limitations on Parliamentary Scrutiny

Despite these mechanisms, critics argue that the Executive is often dominant. The government usually commands a majority in the Commons, largely controls the legislative timetable, and can limit scrutiny through mechanisms such as the guillotine (programme motions) or the use of statutory instruments. Party discipline, reinforced by the whips system, means government MPs rarely rebel. Nonetheless, backbench revolts, select committee activism, and media scrutiny all contribute to effective oversight.

The Influence and Effectiveness of the Executive in Attempting to Exercise Dominance Over Parliament

The Executive has developed a range of strategies to ensure its dominance over Parliament and pursue its legislative agenda.

Control of the Legislative Agenda

The government controls most of the parliamentary time, especially in the Commons. It determines when bills are scheduled and can use programme motions to curtail debate and speed up passage of legislation.

Party Discipline

The government relies on party discipline to ensure its MPs support its policies. The whips system is central to this, with whips encouraging loyalty and punishing dissent. The threat of career advancement, or the withdrawal of the whip, can be formidable incentives for backbenchers to comply.

Use of Delegated Legislation

The Executive frequently employs statutory instruments to implement policy without the need for full parliamentary consideration. While Parliament can theoretically reject these, in practice it rarely does, enabling the Executive to bypass normal scrutiny.

Prime Ministerial Patronage

The Prime Minister’s power to appoint ministers, members of the House of Lords, and other positions is a significant tool of influence. MPs and peers may be reluctant to challenge the government for fear of losing out on advancement.

Management of Information

The Executive can sometimes restrict the flow of information to Parliament, limiting its ability to scrutinise effectively. While reforms such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000 have improved transparency, governments still manage information release carefully.

Majority Government and the Salisbury Convention

A government with a large Commons majority can usually rely on passing its legislation. The Salisbury Convention limits the Lords’ ability to block government bills mentioned in the governing party’s election manifesto, further strengthening Executive dominance.

Limitations on Executive Dominance

However, governments are not always able to dominate Parliament unchallenged. Minority governments (such as Theresa May’s post-2017 and Boris Johnson’s pre-2019) must negotiate with other parties or factions. Strong select committees, public opinion, the judiciary (notably after Miller I and II), and the media can all constrain Executive overreach.

The Changing Balance of Power Between Parliament and the Executive

The balance of power between Parliament and the Executive is dynamic, shaped by political context, constitutional reforms, and external events.

Historical Context

Historically, the Executive has tended to dominate Parliament, especially since the late nineteenth century, when party discipline and mass politics became entrenched. However, periods of strong parliamentary scrutiny and backbench activism have also occurred, especially during times of weak or divided government.

Recent Developments

In the past two decades, the balance has shifted at various points:

• The select committee reforms of 2010, which enhanced the independence of committee chairs and increased their influence, strengthened parliamentary scrutiny.
• The Brexit process saw Parliament assert itself against the Executive, for example in forcing the government to seek parliamentary approval for triggering Article 50 and rejecting Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement multiple times.
• The use and subsequent repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 changed the rules around dissolving Parliament and votes of confidence, temporarily giving Parliament more say.
• The Supreme Court’s decisions in Miller I (2017) and Miller II (2019) highlighted judicial willingness to check the Executive and assert parliamentary sovereignty.

COVID-19 and Emergency Powers

The outbreak of COVID-19 saw the government use emergency powers and statutory instruments to respond rapidly, sometimes at the expense of parliamentary scrutiny. This raised questions about the appropriate balance between effectiveness and accountability in a crisis.

Ongoing Tensions and Debates

The tension between the need for strong, effective government and the imperative of parliamentary accountability is ongoing. Calls for further reform; to empower Parliament, limit Executive dominance, or enhance transparency continue to be debated.

Summary

The relationship between the Executive and Parliament is at the core of the UK’s political system. While the Executive remains powerful; especially with a Commons majority, Parliament has multiple tools to hold it to account and can, in certain circumstances, assert its will. The balance of power is constantly evolving, influenced by constitutional reforms, political events, and judicial decisions. For students of British politics, understanding this relationship is key to making sense of the UK’s democratic process and the ongoing negotiation between government authority and parliamentary oversight.