Lesson video

Hi, how you doing? Hope you're doing well.

My name's Mrs. Tomassi, and I'm gonna be working through with you on your Citizenship lesson today.

So, if you're all ready, you've got everything you need and you're good to go, we'll get started.

The title of today's lesson is "How can we hold our leaders to account?" And this is part of the unit on "Should the UK be called a democracy?" Hopefully by the end of the lesson today, you'll be able to explain what the separation of powers is and how it's used to hold the leaders to account.

There are three keywords in the lesson today, and you'll see them in bold throughout.

If you ever need to, refer back to them here.

So we've got legislative, that's the lawmaking body of the state, i.

e.

Parliament in the UK.

Got executive, the branch of government that is responsible for putting laws or decisions into effect.

And judiciary, the branch of the state that is responsible for enforcing the law.

It is composed of judges and other legal officials.

So we'll make a start with the first of two learning cycles.

It's what does separation of powers mean? So we'll start with that.

So if you start thinking about what do you know about separation of powers, have you heard of these words before? So, hopefully you have, and you might know that in the UK, it's divided among three branches to prevent any one person or group having all the power.

Now, these branches are the legislative, executive, and judiciary.

And they are our keywords, so we're constantly gonna be going through these in the lesson.

The reason that the separation of powers exists is to make sure there's scrutiny, accountability, and checks and balances.

Hopefully you're starting to realise, at the moment, everything's in threes.

So one way to think about, within three branches, and it's making sure to exist because of those three reasons, and it helps to ensure leaders are accountable.

So, we'll start with the first branch.

This is the legislative branch, which is Parliament, responsible for making and amending laws.

Parliament is made up of three parts.

We've got three again.

Do you know what those three parts are? Hopefully if I said the House of Commons, then you've got the House of Lords, and the monarchy.

Great if you managed to get that.

Now, the House of Commons holds more legislative power, while the House of Lords is more as a revising chamber.

So what this means is that the House of Commons will then kind of ping pong to the House of Lords.

They will then check it, they'll go through, and then they're gonna suggest amendments, and they're gonna bring it back to the House of Commons, and then it's gonna end with the House of Commons making those final decisions.

Another important thing to know about the legislative branch is it has a bicameral system.

So now we're kind of going off of the threes and we're back to two here.

Bicameral means two chambers.

Now, we did have a look at the three parts, so out of those three parts, what are the two chambers called? Hopefully you managed to get it's the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Now, what they're doing is like I said earlier when I said about the ping pong, they're performing the checks and scrutiny on each other and they're ensuring that there is this separation of powers.

So, in a democracy, the legislative, remember, that's Parliament in the UK, should be chosen by the people.

So, it's making laws that benefit everyone.

The House of Commons is elected by the citizens.

Do you know what that election's called? I nearly kind of said it.

It's the general election.

It's where you would choose your Member of Parliament.

However, the House of Lords is unelected.

It's made up of appointed members, and they can still influence or delay laws even though not directly chosen by citizens.

Is that a fair system? This is where the question lies, whether it truly represents the will of the people because it's not an elected chamber.

Izzy says, "Some members of the House of Lords are appointed based on their skills and expertise in a particular field.

I think that means they'd be good at scrutinising the government's policies 'cause they have experience in that area." Whereas Alex says, "That's true! Their expertise can bring valuable insight, but it's also important to make sure that all members are accountable to the public.

Having an elected chamber could make the scrutiny process even stronger as everyone would have a say in who gets to be there." I mean, both points are really valid, so it's difficult to say which would be better.

So true or false? Both chambers in the bicameral system are elected.

That's false.

Why is it false? Can you remember that the House of Commons is the elected chamber.

The House of Lords is an appointed chamber.

Now we're gonna move on to the next one.

We've got the executive.

So this is the government.

Now, the government is the group of people with the authority to run and manage the country.

It's formed by the party that gains the most seats at the general election, and they're responsible for running the country, developing and implementing policies.

It is led by the, did you know this one? The Prime Minister.

And they're accountable to Parliament and electorates for their actions.

Actually, there is a lot of overlap with all three.

We're gonna specifically look at executive branch at the moment, and they are held accountable to both the legislative and the judiciary.

So the executive there, both of these other two are holding them accountable.

Can you think how? So if we look at the legislative first, they ensure that the executive doesn't abuse any powers through questioning them in Parliament.

They ensure that government decisions are transparent and they protect the interests of the public.

And then you've got the executive performing checks on the judiciary.

However, you've also got parliamentary sovereignty, which can override decisions made by courts and pass new legislation.

And this is the thing with separation of powers.

Actually, it's not just this one here, this one here, this one here.

There are links, and they all overlap each other.

Now, the reason for that is to ensure at every part there is a checks and balance and that nobody is abusing power at any part.

Check for understanding.

Who holds the executive to account through questioning in Parliament? A, judiciary, B, legislative, C, monarch.

It is the legislative.

Good work if you got that.

So, we are now gonna look at that third one.

Now, we started to talk of them a little bit, so hopefully you've got it and you know what it is.

What is it? It's the judiciary.

That is the courts, and they administer justice and interpret the law.

It is made up of, any ideas? Judges.

Those who hold judicial offices in tribunals.

Magistrates.

Did you know some of them? Hopefully you do.

Now, they're holding the legislative to account.

So we saw earlier how the executive can hold them to account, but the judiciary is also holding the legislative accountable by interpreting and applying the law fairly.

So everyone has a role, and they're all linking to ensure that there is that separation of powers.

Check for understanding.

Can you identify the branch of power that each image represents? So you've got three images there.

Work out which branch of power it is.

A is the judiciary.

Did you manage to get B? That's the executive.

And C is the legislative, that being Parliament there.

And this moves us on to the first task for today.

So, Izzy says, "I think the separation of powers means that power is split into three different parts, and each part has the same powers.

So, the Prime Minister, Parliament, and the courts can do what they want because they're all equally powerful." Can you first of all correct Izzy's understanding of what separation of powers means? When you think you've corrected it, unpause, we can have a look together.

Did you manage to correct it? So you could have said instead: Izzy is correct.

Power is split into three branches, the legislative, Parliament, the executive, government led by the Prime Minister, and the judiciary, courts.

They're not completely separate but interact with checks and balances.

The separation is designed to ensure that no one branch becomes too powerful and that each branch checks the others.

Now, hopefully you managed to find out that, you managed to do that or you managed to get something similar to that, which can lead us on to this second task, which is to draw a diagram to show Izzy how each branch checks each other.

So how did you get on? You could have had any diagram here.

It's just as long as something that's showing this idea of how they interconnect.

So for example, in this diagram, you've got the arrows to show that they all connect to each other.

So for example, the legislative questions government decisions.

To the executive, the executive can create new legislation if they disagree with judicial decisions.

And then the judiciary makes sure laws are applied fairly.

As I said, you might have drawn some different images, but something that just shows that interaction between the branches.

Brilliant for that one.

We're now gonna move on to the second learning cycle.

So how are leaders held accountable? So, when we talk about the separation of powers, it holds leaders accountable by enabling scrutiny.

Have you heard of this word scrutiny before? So this idea of really kind of digging in and finding out what is going on.

And this happens in many forms. So things like debates, questioning, and parliamentary inquiries.

These are just some of the ways that the leaders are scrutinised.

And we're gonna have a look at these and find out how this scrutiny process works.

So, leaders are held accountable through debates.

This example, like Members of Parliament, members of the House of Lords, they participate in debates.

So remember we saw them pictures? They're facing each other.

There are constant debates and people giving their opinions on different issues.

In the House of Commons, the debates are chaired by the Speaker, who calls an MP to speak one by one.

MPs debate government proposals and topics suggested by the opposition.

They also raise concerns from their constituents, which must be responded to.

In the House of Lords, the members debate a broad range of topics, and the members manage the debates themselves.

Having this opportunity, it's allowing for scrutiny to take place, and people can really find out what is going on and why.

Another way is through questioning.

How do these questions happen? Have you got any idea? Are they all questions that are asked? How was a question, how else might the questioning happen? So questions could be oral questions.

These are MPs asked during parliamentary sessions.

So, this is when like the leader or minister has to answer straightaway live and you get a response straightaway.

You then have written questions.

These are submitted in writing.

So maybe you might be looking for a more detailed answer on a specific topic, and the answers are made public.

So again, if we're thinking about the accountability, at every opportunity here, the public get to see the responses.

Whether they're written or whether they're watching, watching the live sessions, they can see the responses.

And then urgent questions.

These are used when an immediate response is required to help address important issues quickly.

Check for understanding.

Match the type of question to the correct example.

So down the one side, you've got the oral questions, written questions, and urgent questions.

On the other side, you've got an MP submits a question to the Minister of Transport to improve public transport services and waits for a detailed response.

An MP asks the Speaker for permission to ask a question about a natural disaster that requires an immediate response from the Prime Minister.

And then an MP asked the Home Secretary about police funding and the Home Secretary responds.

Which one's which? Did you work them out? So oral question is the bottom one.

That's the Home Secretary responding.

The written question is looking for the detailed response from the Minister of Transport.

And the urgent question is asking the Speaker's permission to ask a question that requires an immediate response.

Now, there are other questions that take place as well.

So, for half an hour, normally every Wednesday, MPs can ask questions directly to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons.

This is on any subject for which the government's responsible, and this is known as Prime Minister's Questions.

Prime Minister's Questions, or sometimes you might hear it as PMQs.

Sofia says, "I watch PMQs on the TV with my family." And that's a good point.

Actually, anybody is able to watch it.

It is televised, and you can see what is being asked and what is going on.

Now, the aim of that is to allow MPs to hold the Prime Minister accountable for the actions and policies of the executive branch.

Remember, the executive is government.

So they can also raise concerns on behalf of their constituents, and it allows the citizens to see how the government responds to issues and challenges.

So if we're thinking about the democratic process, again, it's allowing that transparency.

You can see exactly what's going on at the time that it's happening.

True or false? MPs can raise concerns on behalf of their constituents at Prime Minister's Questions, PMQs.

That's true.

It is the opportunity for them to ask.

Now, the third one we had was parliamentary inquiries.

Have you ever heard of just in general what an inquiry is? So when we want to kind of find something out.

So if there is a concern that the government is doing something wrong, a parliamentary inquiry could be requested.

These inquiries are investigations that are carried out by MPs or Lords, and they examine specific issues and hold the government accountable.

So to give you some examples, things like the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK's climate change strategy, and the school standards and the mental health support are all examples of recent inquiries, and they would be looking at those issues specifically.

Alex says, "What can I do as a citizen to hold leaders accountable?" What do you think? Do you think as citizens, can you hold leaders accountable? Is there anything that could be done? So there is, so hopefully you know some of these ideas, and if you don't, it's a good one to know.

So citizens can get involved in many ways.

So things like being involved in select committees.

This might be providing evidence for them.

Raising concerns to parliamentary groups.

Participating in investigations and inquiries because they do involve citizens and the public in them.

Getting in contact with their local representatives.

And using social media to challenge decisions and engage with leaders directly.

And these are just some ways.

There are lots of different ways that citizens themselves can get involved.

Check for understanding.

Which of the following statements are ways citizens can hold leaders accountable? A, asking questions at PMQs, that's Prime Minister's Questions.

B, emailing their MP to challenge a government policy.

C, participating in a public inquiry.

What do you think? So there are two correct ones here, so you've got B and you've got C.

As we said, there are loads of different options, so well done if you managed to get that.

Now, this moves us on to the second task for today.

Can you read through each scenario? And I'll go read through them with you as well.

Identify the method used to hold the leader to account and explain how this holds them accountable.

So I'll read through them first, then can you identify the method and explain how it holds them accountable? So A, my MP asked a direct question to the PM, the Prime Minister, about the rising cost of living.

They were not happy with the response and asked another question.

B, my MP wrote to the Minister of Education regarding the number of pupils missing education.

The Minister provided a detailed written response.

And C, my MP is part of a Health and Social Care committee.

If you need to, take some time to pause, and then once you're ready, we can go through, unpause, and go through together.

How did you get on? Now, for scenario A, you could have said it's an example of oral questioning.

It holds the leaders to account because it allows MPs to ask direct questions to the Prime Minister.

It ensures that leaders have to explain their actions, be transparent, and justify their decisions.

If the response is not satisfactory, MPs can follow up to push for more information, which ensures the government's held responsible.

Now, the second one, for scenario B, that's an example of written questioning.

It holds the leaders to account because it allows MPs to ask detailed questions about policies and ministers are required to provide written responses.

The MPs can have time to research and carefully consider their questions to hold the leaders accountable.

As the answers are written, it helps to ensure transparency as it is then available for public record.

And then the final one, for scenario C, you could have said that's an example of a parliamentary inquiry.

As a member of the committee, the MP can summon ministers to explain their actions in front of the committee and assess if the government responds effectively.

The committee can also recommend improvements to government policies.

Hopefully you managed to identify each of those different scenarios.

And, again, you might have come up with some different reasons, but you've managed to see how they hold each leader to account.

And that's the main part of this learning cycle, is working out these ways how are leaders held accountable.

So that brings us on to the summary of today's lesson.

So to summarise, a separation of powers exists in the UK between the executive, legislative, and judiciary.

This ensures that no one branch becomes too powerful.

It allows for leaders to be held accountable.

Each branch checks and balances each other.

For example, the legislative branch will hold the executive to account through debates in Parliament.

Leaders are held accountable through debates, questioning, and parliamentary inquiries.

Citizens can get involved in this process to ensure leaders are properly scrutinised.

Now, as I said, that brings us to the end of this lesson.

One thing to take from this, it's remembering that those branches have that overlap.

You remember we saw the arrows? They all connect in different ways.

And there are so many different ways, we've kind of only touched on it, that leaders can be held accountable.

It's also important to remember that citizens can be involved in that process too.

So hopefully that's given you some ideas of how you can hold the leaders accountable.

Thanks for working with me today.

I hope you enjoyed it, and enjoy the rest of your day.