Effect of PM Question Time on Government Decision Making

Effect of PM Question Time on Government Decision Making As Norton has noted, Parliament ceased to be a policy-making legislature in the nineteenth century and is now a ‘policy-influencing’ legislature. Parliament is thus expected to subject policy to a process of scrutiny and influence.[1] This essay will assess the extent to which the present mechanisms available to parliament to call the government to account can be said to have a meaningful ability to effect governmental decision making. In order to evaluate the role of parliament in this matter, some of the procedural mechanisms of the House must be examined. Question Time in the House of Commons is one of the principal means by which information is obtained from ministers by Members of Parliament.[2] Prior notice of the questions is given to ministers, however, supplementary questions may then be asked on matters arising out of the minister’s reply, of which notice will not have been given. Question Time is widely publicised and therefore has the effect of drawing public attention to matters of particular concern. The process can also highlight the capabilities of individual ministers as they will need to ‘think on their feet’ in order to answer the supplementary questions. In April 1995 the then Health Secretary announced that several London hospitals were to be closed to curb public expenditure. The announcement of this unpalatable policy was made through a written answer rather than orally in the House. At Question Time the Health Secretary was accused of ‘lacking moral courage’[3] and the episode gain ed considerable publicity. Question Time is the only regular occasion upon which the government is obliged to account to Parliament for its management of the nations affairs.[4] Other merits of the system are that it provides an opportunity for the opposition to select issues as well as an opportunity for backbench MPs to question ministers. This in turn allows for local and regional issues to be given hearing in full parliamentary session. It also offers ministers the opportunity to become aware of issues which might otherwise have gone unnoticed. Parliamentary questions are very useful in highlighting existing governmental policy and bringing any controversial issues surrounding it to the attention of the media and hence the public. This allows effective scrutiny of government. However, the process does not provide a direct mechanism for effecting governmental decision making, although indirectly, the resulting public pressure may provide a mechanism for influencing policy change. Further limitations are tha t it operates on a rota system, with departments being subject to questions only once per 3 or 4 weeks; time restraints make ‘in depth’ questioning impossible; and, sensitive questions can be avoided.[5] Moreover, government backbenchers are able to reduce the time available for opposition questions by presenting favourable questions to ministers. Each Wednesday the House of Commons hosts Prime Minister’s Questions which lasts approximately 30 minutes. This procedure allows the Leader of the Opposition to put up to three questions to the Prime Minister. This presents an opportunity for immediate argument between the parties and can affect MP’s perceptions of their leaders.[6] Other MPs are then able to ask questions of the Prime Minister. As above, this allows for raising public awareness of issues and for questioning government policy. However, similar problems also exist, with the use of government backbenchers to praise government action rather than question it. This process has lead Loveland to conclude: â€Å"That MPs and ministers feel it appropriate to waste the Commons’ evidently limited and supposedly valuable time on such nonsense is in itself regrettable. That such questions are also manifestly an insult to the intelligence of voters provides further justification for the contention that the House of Commons is a quite inadequate vehicle for the sensible representation of political opinion in a modern democratic society.†[7] Another way in which parliament may effect governmental decision making is via debate. There are several types of debate which happen in the House of Commons. Debate will occur after the second reading of legislation, yet there are other provisions as well. Emergency debates may exceptionally occur where a matter is deemed to be of urgent national importance. There are also daily adjournment debates, where backbenchers can initiate short debate on matters for their choosing. Selection is by ballot through the Speaker’s Office. Members may also express concerns about issues by tabling a written motion requesting debate ‘at an early day’. However, such early day motions rarely result in debate and instead are primarily confined to shoeing the strength of parliamentary feeling on particular issues.[8] Where pressure grows significantly the government may feel inclined to respond but again the influence is often indirect. Carroll provides an evaluation of debate as a whole.[9] He states that the merits of debates are that: they force ministers to explain and justify policy initiatives to the House; they provide an opportunity for the opposition to expose flaws in government policy and decisions and present suggestions; they help to educate public opinion; they provide an opportunity for government ministers to display dissent, enabling policy changes to be considered; and, they give MPs the opportunity to present the views of constituents and interest groups. However, the demerits of debate according to Carroll are high in number: in the main it is the government, rather than parliament, which decides what will be debated and when (there are twenty Opposition Days when the Opposition chooses the subject for debate); most debates are dominated by the frontbenches; there is not time to engage in full detailed debate or to debate crises as and when they arise; they are often poorly attended; they attract little public attention. Furthermore, Carroll alleges that policy is formed and decisions made before parliamentary debate takes place. The government therefore defends its decisions during debate regardless of any merits of alternative proposals or exposed defects in its decisions and therefore debates appear to have ‘very little immediate effect in terms of influencing government thinking or action’.[10] Perhaps the most effective scrutiny of government is through select committees.[11] These committees are chaired by senior backbenchers and consist of between 9 and 13 backbench members. They allow in depth analysis of departmental action and investigate a wide range of topics.[12] Examples of issues investigated by select committees include the ‘Westland Affair’[13], although the government refused to allow witnesses from the Department of Trade and Industry to give evidence; and the Arms to Iraq controversy, where the Select Committee on Trade and Industry examined the sale of equipment to Iraq during the first Gulf conflict. Media interest may also influence the topics investigated by select committees, as evidenced by the examination of the decision to go to war in Iraq by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in 2003.[14] Select committees are empowered to send for persons, papers and records and can expect full government co-operation. Furthermore, persons giving evidence must take a formal oath. However, as illustrated above, the co-operation of government, although expected, is not always assured. Once a select committee has investigated an issue it will publish a report. Around one third of these reports result in debate in the House, which are subject to the analysis above. Carroll has provided further evaluation of the merits and demerits of select committees,[15] stating in support that: they provide a systematic infrastructure for detailed scrutiny of government conduct; they are the only parliamentary forum in which ministers and public servants may be questioned ‘in depth’ on topics not determined by party leaders; there is a less party-political atmosphere; the members gain expertise in a particular area; the reports attract media attention. However, the demerits include: they cannot impose any sanctions or direct pressures on government if dissatisfied with departments’ conduct; as noted, few reports result in debate; the government can dictate when persons will not give evidence; they are poorly supported in terms of resources; facilities and rese arch staff. From the analysis above it may be seen that although Parliament has several option open in terms of scrutinising government action, these procedures offer little in terms of direct effect of government decision and policy making. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has produced a report which suggests reforms to make better use of non-legislative time and strengthen the role of the backbench MPs.[16] So far this has resulted in minimal reforms such as a reservation of time for Topical Questions in departmental question time and a consideration of ways in which opportunities to debate the plans of government departments may be guaranteed.[17] However, without further reform, Parliament is currently unable to influence government decision making in any significant per-event sense. Bibliography Allen, M. and Thompson, B., Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law, 9th Edition (2008), Oxford University Press Barnett, H., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 6th Edition (2006), Routledge Cavendish Bogdanor, V., The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century, (2003), Oxford University Press Bradley, A.W. and Ewing, K.D., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 14th Edition (2007), Pearson Carroll, A., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 4th Edition (2007), Pearson Education Lord Hutton, â€Å"The media reaction to the Hutton Report†, (2006) PL 807 Loveland, I., Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction, 4th Edition (2006), Oxford University Press Norton, P. (ed), Parliament in the 1980s, (1985), Blackwell Pollard, D., Parpworth, N., and Hughes, D., Constitutional and Administrative Law: Text with Materials, 4th Edition (2007), Oxford University Press 1 Footnotes [1] Norton, P. (ed), Parliament in the 1980s, (1985), Blackwell, pg 8 [2] Barnett, H., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 6th Edition (2006), Routledge Cavendish, pg 405 [3] cited in Loveland, I., Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction, 4th Edition (2006), Oxford University Press, pg 157 [4] Carroll, A., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 4th Edition (2007), Pearson Education, pg 160 [5] Carroll, supra pg 161 [6] Loveland, supra pg 158 [7] Loveland, supra pg 159 [8] Pollard, D., Parpworth, N., and Hughes, D., Constitutional and Administrative Law: Text with Materials, 4th Edition (2007), Oxford University Press, pg 281 [9] Carroll, supra pp 162-164 [10] Carroll, ibid note 9 [11] Bogdanor, V., The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century, (2003), Oxford University Press, pg 172 [12] Bradley, A.W. and Ewing, K.D., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 14th Edition (2007), Pearson, pg 219 [13] Defence Committee, HC 518, 519 (1985-86), London: HMSO; Trade and Industry Committee, HC 176 (1986-87), London: HMSO; Treasury and Civil Service Committee, HC 92 (1985-86), London: HMSO [14] Lord Hutton, â€Å"The media reaction to the Hutton Report†, (2006) PL 807 [15] Carroll, supra pp 168-170 [16] Allen, M. and Thompson, B., Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law, 9th Edition (2008), Oxford University Press, pg 321 [17] Allen and Thompson supra pp 321-322

Essay --

In 2002, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) and the New York and New Jersey Port Authority held a collaborative planning event organized by America Speaks regarding the future development of the World Trade Center site after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The LMDC and Port Authority initially created six congruent plans regarding the reconstruction of the site. The LMDC saw the mandate they had to follow in reconstructing the tower to be broad. "LMDC thus announced that it would set up eight advisory councils to represent key constituencies—families; residents; restaurants, retailers, and small businesses; arts, education and tourism; financial services firms; professional firms; commuters and transportation; and development." (Rosegrant P.2 2002) The LMDC had made plans that would involve making the site into a mixed area of commercial and residential. The Port Authority likewise desired to stick to the original layout of the previous World Trade Center struct ure. They wanted to keep the space strictly for commercial and office space purposes. (Rosegrant 2002) Unable to come to an agreement on how the site should be used, it was decided to try and reach a wider demographic in regards to creating a blueprint for the reconstruction of the site. The Port Authority and the LMDC decided to accept a proposal from America Speaks on organizing a collaborative process that will bring all of the various stakeholders together. To discuss the future of the World Trade Center site. America Speaks' collaborative event brought together over 5,000 participants. 4,500 of whom were of the general public representative of the various demographics that resided within the region. The rest being composed of government and civic leade... ...c mobilization and decision making embodies the message. When designing a collaborative process I might have done certain things differently, despite its flaws the collaborative process proved to be successful. This success is owed to being inclusive through the formatting of the meeting. Innovative use of online and offline space. Allowing participants during the initial meeting define what they would want in a design plan of the space to be reconstructed. This format of collaborative planning was fairly new and it explains why participants were not confident that their input will not be considered in the decision making. While technology did play a prominent role the management of the process was also depended on the quality of table facilitators, scribes and the theme team. America Speaks was able to successfully organize and operate this collaborative process.

Antonius Werink Margaret Jefferson Case

Contrariwise, training and developing Hart, if even possible, could turn out to be costly as well. Therefore, I recommend Margaret Jefferson to find a better fit for this crucial position, meaning letting him go. At the moment Hart is still in his probationary period, making it less costly to let him go. Furthermore, I suggest to replace Hart by the administrative manager for the short term. For the long term, the administrative manager could train the intern and prepare him for the job and the specific tasks.Question 2 Three recommendations Margaret Jefferson should follow: 1) Straight to the point. 2) Offer help. ) Be professional. When meeting with Hart, Jefferson should immediately make clear what the purpose of the meeting is. She should know what she wants to say and communicate this directly with Hart. There's no need to go into detail about the reasons for the termination. The reasons should be clear, since Hart was constantly informed about his performance and had enough tim e and possibilities to improve it; There shouldn't be an argument or discussion.Furthermore, Jefferson should make clear all the details of the separation, meaning all the steps they have to take (e. G. Clearing out their workspace, signing legally binding agreements, etc. ). Moreover, Jefferson is not firing Hart because she doesn't like him. In fact, Jefferson is actually convinced of his interpersonal capabilities. Therefore, she might want to help Hart in finding a job, which would fit him and his capabilities better. Jefferson could maybe recommend him to some other companies.Finally, Jefferson should be aware Of the fact that she's acting in the best interest Of the company. The lay-off is not personal, but just business. Jefferson is responsible for the performance of the company and the employees, thus if those are failing, so is she. Question 3 The failure of hiring Hart and its particular hiring process, exposes some inaccuracies in the hiring protocol Jefferson used. Firs tly, there was too little emphasis on the administrative skills of Hart, although this is extremely important for the position.Secondly, the decision about hiring Hart was made too fast. Thirdly, the communication and cooperation between Jefferson and the administrative manager was deficient. In order to improve these three points recommend the following: 1) Align the hiring protocol with the specific job. Different jobs require different capabilities. The emphasis in the ease of Hart should have been more on administrative skills and interpersonal skills, rather than only on interpersonal skills. 2) Don't rush the hiring process.Although the need of hiring a Special Events Manager was urgent, they never should have rushed the process. If Jefferson would have followed all the steps of her hiring protocol she may have discovered Hart Was lacking vital administrative skills at an earlier Stage. 3) Include the administrative manager more in the hiring process. Including the administrat ive manager more in the hiring process, could have prevented Jefferson from hiring an incapable Special Events Manager. The administrative manager is better aware of the specific administrative capabilities needed for the specific job.

The Civil War Reconstruction - 1156 Words

The Civil war could very easily be known as one of the greatest tragedies in United States history. After the Civil War, the people of The United States had so much anger and hatred towards each other and the government that 11 Southern states seceded from the Nation and parted into two pieces. The Nation split into either the Northern abolitionist or the Southern planation farmers. The Reconstruction era was meant to be exactly how the name announces it to be. It was a time for the United States to fix the broken pieces the war had caused allowing the country to mend together and unite once again. The point of Reconstruction was to establish unity between the states and to also create and protect the civil rights of the former slaves.†¦show more content†¦The southerners wrote these laws in order to maintain â€Å"White Supremacy† and the old order that originally made slavery possible. The punishment that the Black Codes stated were such unrealistic obligations fo r the newly freed black slaves that it was very well setting them up for failure. One law stated, â€Å" Such person, shall be fined not less than fifty dollars, and not more than five hundred dollars, and cost; and if said fine and costs shall not be immediately paid, the court shall sentence said convict to six months imprisonment in the county jail.† This is just an example of the unreasonable discrimination the blacks had to serve. In 1865, fifty dollars was a lot of money that newly freed slaves, who had never gotten paid before now, did not have. The White Southerners knew that the freed slaves did not have the ability to pay the cost immediately and would have no choice but to be put into imprisonment. The rules were also very vague and broad that basically anything could fall under the categories of being against the law. For example, â€Å"Committing riots, routs, affrays, trespasses, malicious mischief, cruel treatment to animals, seditious speeches, insulting gestures, language, or arts, or disturbance of the peace..†. In this case, the words are so vague that anything that the blacks said or did could fall under one category or the other. A white person could very easily state that something innocent was anShow MoreRelatedReconstruction Of The Civil War1108 Words   |  5 PagesAmerica’s Mindset Although the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the Reconstruction brought great hope to America’s four million former slaves, the efforts of Congressional Reconstruction ultimately failed to establish equal rights for the freedmen because the racist mindset still dominated American society at the time and Democratic influence steadily overcame Republican control in Congress. Despite the Union’s victory, the end of the Civil War brought many significant national problemsRead MoreThe Civil War and Reconstruction1315 Words   |  5 Pages Reconstruction The main issue between the states that seceded from the Union and those that remained in the former unity was that of states rights, of which the right for citizens to own slaves was of primary concern. It is often argued that one or the other was the main reason for the conflict, but they both played a major part because the people of the Northern United States and the Southern states of the nation lived such different lives. It is true that people in the North had owned slavesRead MoreReconstruction Of The Civil War951 Words   |  4 PagesHistory 11 7 May 2015 Reconstruction In the beginning of 1865, the Civil War came to a close, abandoning over 620,000 dead and a destructive path of devastating all over the south. The North now was confronted with the task of reconstructing the destroyed and aggrieved Confederate states. On April 11, two days after Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s submission, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his last public address, during which he designated a merciful Reconstruction plans and encouraged sympathyRead MoreReconstruction Of The Civil War847 Words   |  4 Pages Microtheme One - Reconstruction The Reconstruction happened in period following the end of the American Civil and the main goal was to reintegrate the Southern Confederate States back into the Union after they had been defeated by the Union (Northern States). As would be expected, the process was met with many challenges as the interests of both groups had to be addressed. There was debate over the terms under which the Confederate States would be allowed back into the Union, and whether it wasRead MoreThe Civil War And Reconstruction977 Words   |  4 Pagescalled the Reconstruction period â€Å"America’s Second Revolution†, his characterization was correct. Reconstruction can be viewed as a revolution because the previous social order, slavery, was replaced suddenly by a more favorable one, freedom for African-Americans. There was a long period of politicization for incorporating free African-Americans into white society. Reconstruction also revolutionized the preconceived notion that the states ha d autonomous power. The Civil War and Reconstruction were revolutionaryRead MoreReconstruction Of The Civil War1560 Words   |  7 PagesPrior to the Civil War, the United States’ economy was essentially agricultural based; slavery in the South was the key player in its prosperous economy. Hence, it is no wonder the South stood in defense of slavery’s permanence when challenged with the demand for abolition. The Southern proslavery Confederate states fought against the Northern antislavery Union states during the Civil War. The Union prevailed in the war and once the Confederates seceded and left the United States with a new predicament:Read MoreThe Civil War : The Reconstruction1398 Words   |  6 PagesThe civil war ended in 1865 and what followed was a kerfuffle, otherwise known as â€Å"The Reconstruction.† This was a period of violence and turbulent controversy ranging from racial issues to economic problems. In the book Reconstruction, Eric Foner wrote that â€Å"When the Civil War ended, the white South genuinely accepted the reality of military defeat, stood ready to do justice to the emancipated slaves, and desired above all a quick reintegration into the fabric of national life. Before his deathRead MoreCivil War Reconstruction1031 Words   |  5 PagesThe period after the Civil War was a very difficult time in the United States history. This time was known as the Reconstruction period and it was a very controversial time. There were many issues that had to be addressed such as what to do with the free blacks in the south and how states would be readmitted to the Union. This era saw the rise of the Radical Republicans. The government was going through changes, southerners were going through changes, and blacks were going through changes. WhitesRead MoreReconstruction Of The Civil War1054 Words   |  5 Pages As the civil war was ending many people could see that the odds of th e north winning increased dramatically however many people can argue this idea based on the several events that took place during the second phase of the civil war. Carl Schurz concluded, â€Å"The Civil War was a revolution, but half accomplished.†(Roark et al 434) Reconstruction started before the civil war ended until 1877, when people of the United States tried figuring out how to put the country back together. Many people hadRead MoreThe Civil War And Reconstruction1357 Words   |  6 PagesCivil War/ Reconstruction - Following the Civil War, the United States underwent a huge process of reconstruction to unifying and reconstructing the war-torn state. The nation still remained utterly divided between North and South in essentially all aspects of life including religion, race, and government. President Andrew Johnson,who succeeded President Abraham Lincoln enacted various policies in order to unite the country. These policies included friendly policies that pardon ed Southerners while