How effective is Question Time as a method for scrutinising the government of the day?

One way in which Parliament holds the government to account, is through the use of Question time that occur every six weeks for each department in government. This is effective in some ways as it puts the prime minister and other ministers in the spotlight, so they can’t rely on their party whip to help them answer the questions. Tony Blair considered the experience as a ‘terrifying ordeal,' which shows how tough the experience if for a Prime minister as Blair was considered to be very effective in PMQs. This therefore shows that it is effective in its scrutiny. PMQs is also effective as it does receive media coverage, making the event well known to the public. Criticisms of the government, like Blair’s statement ‘weak, weak, weak’ to Major, are then used by the media and the opposition parties as a way of criticising the governing party and the Prime minister. This can be harmful at general elections for that governing party, showing that PMQs can be effective in holding the government to account to an extent. PMQs are limited though in the fact that the leader of the opposition can only ask six questions during that 30 minute section, which does make it hard for the opposition to effectively scrutinise the Prime Minister. An example is that Jeremy Corbyn asked Theresa May about whether she was to blame for the destruction of the 'Windrush' generation's landing cards during one PMQs session, in which May refused to answer that question and decided to just use her answers to blame the last Labour Government. This does show that PMQs does not allow detailed scrutiny of the government, unlike select committees that have more scrutiny powers. PMQs are also considered to be more theatrical than effective scrutiny, which is because of the fact that it is a ‘Punch-and-Judy’ style event. This can make it hard for effective scrutiny of the executive, if each 30 minutes session has parts where the leaders are just insulting each other. Compared to the other ways of accountability like Select Committees and the House of Lords, PMQs is the least successful in scrutinising the government due to the fact that it is more of a pantomime performance than an effective form of scrutiny. However the fact that government backbenchers can ask questions can provide effective scrutiny opportunities, in that divisions within a party on big issues like Brexit can be on show in PMQs. Questions from the European Research Group, a hardline Eurosceptic group within the Conservative party, has hurt the government during PMQs in showing the divisions within the party over Brexit. So overall, although the opposition questions can be important in holding the government to account, the fact that government backbenchers can use the opportunity to sound off their issues with government policy can provide effective opportunities for the media to then scrutinise and hold the Prime Minister to account.