Toothbrushes and Tofu :: Short Story Papers

Toothbrushes and Tofu "Yay hyperchocolate hazelnut cake Yay apricot baklava Yay carrot cake and apple crisp Yay periwinkle dining room trim Yay co-ops" - Watermyn house journal, 1986 The co-op is on the corner of Waterman and Governor streets, hunkered there like an old man, into a dilapidated permanence. Two enormous cherry trees occupy the front yard; in the fall their golden leaves are left in peace to coat the lawn until they rot or blow away. A tangled cluster of bicycles clings to a metal sculpture that is perched like an insect under the largest tree. The front garden sprouts renegade tomato plants and Echinacea flowers, long taken over with weeds, and a tin sign hangs feebly from a piece of yellow pipe, its faded letters announcing, "Watermyn Co-op Garden." The newly built front porch smells of wet, cut wood and supports a ratty looking couch, a small mosaiced table, and half a dozen un-opened Wall Street Journals. The Watermyn kitchen never fails to be a stimulating experience. This Sunday night is no exception. Ian and Allison chop vegetables, and the counters swim in piles of mushrooms, carrots, spinach, bowls of crumbled tofu and pans spread with thick pizza dough. Liz Phair plays on the stereo, just loud enough to inhibit a normal decibel of conversation. Old crumpled newspapers litter the two couches beneath the stereo, and rows of red-capped spices, cereal boxes and other assorted dried goods line the racks above the counters. Clippings, sketches and posters plaster the refrigerator and walls. Broken kitchen appliances are stuck above the fridge with black electrical tape and someone has scrawled above them in black marker, "Kitchen appliance graveyard - where all good cooking tools come to die." Ian is tall, with a warm smile and a worn-in look, faded and comfortable like someone's favorite sneakers. He groans as he opens up rotting bags of spinach, "How long has this been in the fridge? I'm not going to use this. Do you think I should use this? No, no one will want to eat this." Allison doesn't offer any suggestions. She smiles unconcernedly and slides an assembled pizza into the oven, holding her long brown hair back with one hand. Dinner is served at 6:30 and in a few minutes co-opers will begin to wander into the kitchen and common rooms, lured by the smell of cooking dough and stir-fried garlic.

Drug Testing and Ethics Essay

Is drug testing an unwarranted invasion of employee privacy? Which is more important–getting drugs out of the workplace or protecting the privacy of the employee? What about other health-threatening activities, i. e. smoking outside of working hours, unprotected sex, etc. Should employers be able to question or test employees or potential employees about these activities? Both of these scenarios are tricky ones. On the one hand, any employer would want to get drugs out of the workplace. On the other hand you don’t want to invade an employee’s privacy. At the same time some jobs may require employees to conform to a certain standard of behavior both on and off the job, but how much is too much? How much should be employees be judged and how high of a standard should be set. Where do we draw the line? Shaw and Barry in their text Moral Issues in Business state â€Å"A firm has a legitimate interest in employee conduct off the job only if it affects work performance† (Shaw & Barry 2010, p477). It can be argued that as long as the drug use doesn’t affect the employee’s work performance, then he shouldn’t be tested. If he is tested and the result is positive, but work performance is satisfactory, then drug use should not be considered as grounds for termination. Perhaps a better way to state this could be that as long as employee performance meets or exceeds the expected standards, then drug testing should not be used even if drug use is suspected. Egoism can be used to argue from both points of view. According to this theory, â€Å"an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes an agent’s interests† (Shaw & Barry, 2010 p59). Following this theory, if the employer drug tests several employees and fires all who test positive, then they are acting in their best interests. On the other hand, if the employee’s best interests are served through their drug usage, then the employee has acted in the best moral way that he can. Using this theory does however raise some interesting questions. If the best possible person for a specific job is fired as a result of a drug test result, and the company’s performance in that specific department falls as a result of this, then was the action a morally right one? From a personal point of view, I believe that drug testing should be used only if the job requirements demand it. I don’t see any need for the person who picks up my garbage to be tested. I do however see a need for the school crossing guard at my children’s school to be tested. The person who shovels the snow from my driveway in the winter and mows my lawn in the spring and summer doesn’t need to be drug tested. My doctor should be. Several years ago my husband and I had a spat over my decision to hire the town drunk to do some lawn work and prune some tree branches off our roof. In all fairness I had no idea that he was the town drunk when I hired him, I was out in our backyard picking up fallen branches and he walked by at that moment. He asked if I had any odd jobs to be done and since he came across as clean and presentable and lucid I hired him on the spot. It wasn’t until three weeks later when my husband came home early and saw Bruce (the town drunk) at the top of a 50 foot tree sawing branches off that he realized who his new handyman was. Since he was usually the one on call at night whenever Bruce had one of his â€Å"benders† and had had cleaned him up several times, he now knew where Bruce was getting his drinking money from. My husband came home and told me he’d fired him. I rehired Bruce a day later. My reasoning was that he’d never shown up drunk, he did a great job on any task I set for him and his fee was reasonable. It was within my best interests to keep Bruce employed therefore I was acting as an egoist. It was within Bruce’s best interests to remain employed since it gave him the money to support his habit. He was acting as an egoist. We were both also following the theory of Libertarianism under which each person is free to live as he or she wishes â€Å"free from the interference of others† (Shaw & Barry, 2010 p122). My husband in his decision to fire Bruce was also acting partially from an egoist point of view since an unemployed Bruce meant a sober Bruce which meant no trips to the ER which meant that my husband wouldn’t have to deal with a cursing, screaming, bloody drunk Bruce. At the same time he was also acting from Kant’s theory which states that â€Å"Only when we act from a sense of duty does our action have moral worth† (Shaw & Barry, 2010 p69). My husband felt that it was his duty as a member of the medical profession, not to enable a habit that could possibly cause harm to an individual. A high incidence of false positive results in drug testing is another reason for the argument that drug testing should not be used. In researching this paper I was surprised to learn how many over the counter drugs can produce false positive results. According to an article on The National Center for Biotechnology Information website entitled â€Å"Commonly prescribed medications and potential false positive urine drug screens† published Aug 15th 2010, â€Å"A number of routinely prescribed medications have been associated with triggering false-positive UDS results. Verification of the test results with a different screening test or additional analytical tests should be performed to avoid adverse consequences for the patients. † Some of the more common drugs that could produce false positive results were nonprescription nasal inhalers such as Vicks, antihistamines, antidepressants, and antibiotics such as Amoxicillin which has been associated with false positive urine screens for cocaine. Employers should not be able to question or test employees about other behaviors that they might consider health threatening. This is a rather grey area and raises the questions of where to draw the line. For example if a company which is trying to reduce health insurance costs, decides to eliminate all smokers from their payroll since it costs more to insure smokers, shouldn’t they then eliminate overweight employees who are more likely to develop health problems than fit ones? What about employees with pre-existing conditions such as high cholesterol or high blood pressure or kidney problems? Shouldn’t they be eliminated as well? Should employers be allowed to use polygraph tests to â€Å"screen† out potentially costly employees who may engage in illegal drug use or any of these activities? The polygraph test, or as it is more commonly known, the lie detector test measures several physiological with in the human body such as increased blood pressure, increased pulse and respiration. However in spite of what most people believe it is not the most reliable test. Shaw and Barry in their text Moral Issues in Business list three assumptions made by those who advocate for the use of these tests. These assumptions are *  1.  Lying will automatically trigger a distinctive response to the question. * 2. Polygraphs are very accurate. * 3. Polygraphs cannot be beaten. (Shaw & Barry, 2010 p480). Unfortunately for these advocates while the polygraph test measures bodily responses to questions it cannot indicate whether or not the response is actually a lie. A person who has a history of being abused may register different reactions to questions along that subject area and all that these reactions may indicate is discomfort to the question not necessarily that the response to the question itself is a lie. Opinions vary as to just how accurate the tests are with the percentages ranging from 90% to as low as 55%, the higher percentages coming not surprisingly from the American Polygraph Association. Finally polygraph tests can be beaten and even generate false positives. Spies John Walker and Aldrich Ames both passed polygraph tests as did Gary Ridgeway the â€Å"Green Killer†. Ames actually passed two different polygraph tests. Since these tests are costly, using them as a screening method for either new hires or present employees may not be the best solution and should be considered on a case by case basis. Other methods should be used before resorting to polygraphs testing such as drug testing which may indicate previous drug use (although as has been mentioned earlier some false positive results may occur) or even background tests which may turn up questionable incidents. If during the course of these two checks questions are raised about the employee or new hire, then the employer could resort to the use of a polygraph. It could be argued that utilizing either or both of these two other methods is even more costly to the employers but I would say that any employer who needs to use a polygraph test to weed out potentially costly employees could afford to administer the extra tests to be absolutely sure. Fortunately for most employees, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 which protects the rights of employees and outlines the usage and restrictions of lie detector tests states: â€Å"The EPPA prohibits most private employers from using lie detector tests, either for preemployment screening or during the course of employment. Employers generally may not require or request any employee or job applicant to take a lie detector test, or discharge, discipline, or discriminate against an employee or job applicant for refusing to take a test or for exercising other rights under the Act†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ It then goes on to outline just which employers are permitted to utilize lie detector tests †¦ â€Å"Subject to restrictions, the Act permits polygraph (a type of lie detector) tests to be administered to certain job applicants of security service firms (armored car, alarm, and guard) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers. Subject to restrictions, the Act also permits polygraph testing of certain employees of private firms who are reasonably suspected of involvement in a workplace incident (theft, embezzlement, etc. ) that resulted in specific economic loss or injury to the employer. † (United States Department of Labor website) My argument to using a polygraph test therefore would be that assuming that the employer fell into one of these categories then yes they should be permitted to utilize lie detector tests but only as a last resort. I submit this argument using the rule utilitarianism theory. This is not to be confused with act utilitarianism. Under act utilitarianism, â€Å"we ask must ask ourselves what the consequences of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected. If its consequences bring more total good than those of any alternative course of action, then this action is the right one† (Shaw & Barry, 2010 p63) The action that produces the greatest amount of happiness is the right one. Rule utilitarianism asks â€Å"what moral code †¦ a society should adopt to maximize happiness. The principles that make up that code would then be the basis for distinguishing right actions from wrong actions† (Shaw & Barry, 2010 p80-81). Under act utilitarianism, if 20 employees were polygraphed and 15 of them failed the test and were fired as a result, then the action would not be a moral one since more people would be left unhappy rather than happy. Using those same figures, if the rule or moral code that needed to be followed was that of a no drug policy, and the same 20 employees were polygraphed and again 15 failed and were fired, then the action would be a morally right one since firing the 15 employees made sure that the moral code was enforced. References http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20689123 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph_test http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/eppa.htm#who

Parliament as a Check on Government - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2548 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Politics Essay Type Analytical essay Tags: Government Essay Political Essay Did you like this example? Scrutinising the executive is one of the imperative duties of the UK Parliament. It à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"seeks to limit and control the exercise of power by making those who hold the power- the executive- directly and constitutionally responsible to the legislatureà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[1] Thus, it monitors power balance by implementing adequate checks and balances of the activities undertaken by the executive. Such measures subjecting the government to different, critical types of scrutiny are necessary to form a coherent, effective and stable authority in a democratic society. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Parliament as a Check on Government" essay for you Create order However, this is not always the case since various factors prevent the Parliament from scrutinising the executive effectively. This essay will firstly focus on explaining the role of Parliament in terms of the doctrine of separation of powers and the opportunities it has to hold the government to account. Furthermore, I intend to demonstrate numerous weaknesses of the mechanisms used to control the exercise of power and, finally, suggest possible measures strengthening the process of scrutiny undertaken by the Parliament. In order to explain and fully understand the constitutional role of Parliament, its powers and responsibilities, it is essential to consider the composition of parliamentary system inside which the machine of government operates. In the UK, Commonwealth countries, and many other nations, Parliament is the highest authority[2] whereas the Government, also known as the executive, is the institution in charge of Governing a country. Parliament can be identified as a bi-cameral legislature composed of the lower house, The House of Commons, which holds the decision making autonomy, and the House of Lords, upper chamber of Parliament with a limited legislative power, working inter alia as a check on the powers exercised by the government. In theory, not only does the bi-cameral legislature exist to ensure democratically created policy and legislation but also to safeguard the country from the autocracy or the rise of dictatorships. Separation of powers becomes a fundamental tool for avoiding the emergence of such dangers. Locke stated in his Second Treatise of Civil Government: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"it may be too great a temptation to human frailtyfor the same persons who have the power of making laws, to have also their hands the power to execute them, whereby they may exempt themselves from obedience to the laws they make, and suit the law, both in its making and execution, to their own private advantageà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[3] The idea behind the doctr ine of separation of powers seeks to ensure no arbitrary abuse of powers and therefore stresses the importance of the role Parliament plays in scrutinising the executive as well as the need for implementing appropriate checks and balances. Nevertheless, there is no strict separation of powers in UK since the government and Parliament often work together particularly in developing laws. Complete absence of cooperation between the three limbs of the government could result in a constitutional deadlock and therefore, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"complete separation of powers is possible neither in theory nor in practice.'[4] The collaboration between the legislature and the executive does not mean that parliament should soften its efforts of scrutinizing the government. Robustly scrutinizing the executive indicates that the nation is strictly adhering to the principles of democracy[5]. The government must be accountable and responsible to the citizens it governs. Therefore, in the UK and other es tablished democracies, Parliament scrutinizes the executive through various tools outlined in the countryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s constitution and other set regulatory systems[6]. The most common mechanisms adopted by the Parliament are debates, ministerial questions and select committee. The debates taking place in the House of Commons look at the government policy as well as general issues of national and international importance. Parliament can call Ministers to account by forcing them to explain their actions on behalf of the public whereas backbenchers are given an opportunity to question and suggest alternatives to the proposed government policies[7]. The more controversial issues discussed during the parliamentary debates can arguably attract significant media attention[8]which may be beneficial for the scrutiny of the executive process since it encourages public participation. However, whilst debate is an essential part in pursuing governmentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s accountability by compelling Ministers to justify their positions[9], it has a limited value and does not constitute a sufficient scrutiny of the Government. Generally, MPs are informed of the topic of discussions beforehand, thus they usually can prepare a generic answer. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the objective of holding debates is often undermined by a large influence of the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"whips and members of the leading party resulting in a smaller number of defeats for the governing party. This method of scrutiny, therefore, may serve as an outset or aid a general executive check-ups. Introducing a person or body directly responsible for keeping the right order of the debate and ensuring it does not turn into political argues might enhance the effectiveness of this method. Issues that require deeper attention should be examined using another scrutinizing mechanism, such as Parliamentary questions. It may either be in oral or written form. All ministers are expected to atte nd question time at least once every four weeks on the rota basis[10]. The purpose of parliamentary questions, according to Erskine May, is to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"obtain information or to press for actionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[11]. Constitutional obligation imposed on ministers to provide truthful information with regards to fulfilling their ministerial duties is an effective way of ensuring that they are au fait with the activities undertaken in their department. In practice, however, not only are ministers notified of questions allowing them to prepare answers beforehand but are also required to discuss the matters relating only to the area of their responsibility and refuse to disclose anything that would not be of public interest[12]. There is also the Prime Minister Questioning time occurring on Wednesdays, which theoretically is an effective way of scrutinizing the executive since the Prime Minister is the head of the executive. In practice, though, questions from the opposition MPs ar e put forward to the Prime Minister in advance of the question time, allowing him to consult it with his cabinet colleagues and to prepare the appropriate answer. Hence, it would rather be wrong to imply that this mean of scrutiny is fully effective in bringing the activities of the government to account.According to Tomkins, the effectiveness of oral parliamentary questions in scrutinizing the executive and hence testing and ensuring accountability is doubtful[13]. While answers to written questions may not enjoy high media publicity as that received by oral and other parliamentary debates, the executive has sufficient time to provide all the necessary information. However, in reality ministers tend to often reveal no more than it is necessary. Fortunately, the Scott inquiry report prompted the legislature to adopt various reforms that guided how executive departments should draft answers to parliamentary question to ensure their credibility[14]. Some of the reforms taken were ensu ring the House of Common Select Committee on Public Administration performs annual inquiry on Ministersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ answers to various parliamentary questions to ensure they answer as per the set guidelines. The committee then publishes report, highlighting some of the improvements already made in the answering of the question and recommending those areas that still need to be looked at[15]. Generally, the committee has continued to play a significant role in ensuring the executive is open enough to guarantee political accountability. Their efforts guarantee that parliamentary questions act as an effective tool of scrutinizing the executive. It has increased the effectiveness to an extent whereby the parliament may use this mechanism to force the executive to disclose information it would have otherwise preferred not to disclose[16]. Select committee is the third mechanism that parliament has at its disposal to further pursue the accountability of the executive. They are de fined in à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"the New British Politicsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ as: Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords that consider general political issues which are wider than a particular piece of legislation[17]. Thus, they are mainly focusing on monitoring and scrutinising the executive duties of policy creation and implementation by government rather than only its legislative functions. The structure of select committees continues to be the same until the time when a new government is elected, in which case the existing members are replaced in order to reflect the change in government. For the fact that select committees focus on specific policy areas, it can be suggested that they are a form of an extremely useful mechanism available in scrutinising particular areas of the policy making process. A unique attribute of these committees is the fact that they are largely comprised of backbenchers, Members of Parliament. The composition of the members of the committee reflects the general composition of the House of Commons. This is arguably one of the fundamental weaknesses of the select committee since it allows the Government majority to dominate the minority. The small size nature of the select committee is, however, a positive attribute. It allows for a small manageable group of MPs to develop specialized and detailed knowledge on important aspects of Government administration[18]. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the select committee system is the most efficient mechanism used by Parliament to scrutinize the executive. In fact, the introduction of the select committee system has been cited as the most notable parliamentary reform of the twentieth century[19]. It, therefore, follows without saying that strengthening Parliamentary committees, especially the select committees, is one of the most effectual ways of enhancing the parliamentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s abilities to scrutinize the government. The question that now begs for an a nswer is how to strengthened parliamentary committees, particularly the select committee. The Liaison Committee in 2000 suggested some of the reforms that could be undertaken to enhance the effectiveness of select commitees in performing their scrutiny role[20]. These suggestions included remunerating the chair of the committee, reducing the power of the whip by removing his/her power to choose committee members, granting committee adequate resources, and ensuring committees follow up on executives to ensure their recommendation and direction for guaranteeing accountability are being implemented[21]. So far, most of Liaison Committeeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s recommendations for reforms have been adopted[22]. Going forward, reforms that strengthen parliamentary committee should be adopted regularly. The committees are likely to be strong if the turnover rate of its members and chair is low. Therefore, measure that ensures committee chair and members have incentives to work for a long pe riod in the committee should be adopted. The ability of the committee to conduct research and acquire crucial information should also be enhanced. This can be done by training and providing committee with sufficient resources needed to acquire the necessary expertise even from external sources. Also very important is ensuring the committees receive quality and accurate information about executive governance in an easily accessible manner, otherwise an effective committee may not achieve its full potential. The transparency and accessibility of this information can be guaranteed by applying laws that compel the Government to provide such information without any hesitation. All loopholes the executive might use to conceal essential information from the parliament must be eliminated[23]. Parliament should also work with other stakeholders in scrutinizing the executive[24]. Such stakeholders include civil society, the media, electorate, and the public since they might be an import ant source of crucial information concerning the performance of the executive. They might also have expertise that might not be at the disposal of parliament. Therefore, they could uncover executive issue more easily than parliament. Such collaboration could provide useful information that might act as basis for conducting further scrutiny on certain functions of the Government. In conclusion, scrutinizing the executive is arguably the main role of the parliament. Performing this role effectively is an indication of a democratic nation. There are many ways available for the parliament to exercise its role and since they supplement each other, we should stress the importance of all of them. However, evidence presented in the essay shows numerous deficiencies in this process preventing Parliament from effectively controlling the exercise of the Governmentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s power. The tendency of ministers to give, previously prepared, generic answers to questions during debates an d question times undermines the value of this scrutinising medium which calls for implementation of an element of surprise forcing ministers to answer questions spontaneously. It seems to be clear also that the ability of the legislature to hold the executive to account and closely examine the policy making process depends largely on the size of the governments majority in the Parliament[25]. Similarly, same problem arises with select committee members who are chosen by the Prime Minister and whose power tends to be enjoyed by the backbenchers making the outcome of the decisions favourable for the leading party. The Select Committee, however, arguably is the most effective method used by Parliament because it allows for a deeper scrutiny of political accountability issues. It seems apparent that there is a need for enhancing Parliamentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s capacity to hold the government to account, therefore, to make them even more effective, appropriate measures strengthening the pr ocess of scrutiny should be adopted. Perhaps, introducing independent person or body to make sure debates and question times are carried out more effectively and as a result enhancing the input of this methods in controlling the exercise of the governmentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s power, could be a good starting point. Bibliography A W Bradley, K D Ewing,Constitutional and Administrative Law(14th, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow 2007) p.87 Erskine Mayà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Treatise on the Law, Privilege, Proceedings and usage of Parliament (24th edn)( London: LexisNexis, 2011), p. 358. I, Budge, I Crewe, D McKay, K Newton,The New British Politics(14th, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow 2007) 425 J. Levy. Strengthening Parliamentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Power of Scrutiny? An assessment of the introduction of Public Bill Committees, (London, University College London, 2009),15 Michael Rush,Parliament Today(1st edn, Manchester University Press, Manchester 2005) p.3 Roger Master man, Colin Murray,Exploring Constitutional and Administrative Law(1st, Pearson, Harlow 2013) 606 Philip Norton, Baron Norton of Louth,The Commons in Perspective(1st, Longman, 1981) 119 Parliament, Parliament and Government (parliament.uk 2014) lt;https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-governmentgt; accessed 22 December 2014 Second Treatise of Civil Government John Locke (1690), Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law By Brian Thompson, Michael Gordon p.27 [1] Michael Rush,Parliament Today(1st edn, Manchester University Press, Manchester 2005) p.3 [2] Parliament, Parliament and Government (parliament.uk 2014) lt;https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-governmentgt; accessed 22 December 2014 [3] Second Treatise of Civil Government John Locke (1690), Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law By Brian Thompson, Michael Gordon p.27 [4] A W Bradley, K D Ewing,Constitutional and Administrative Law(14th, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow 2007) p.87 [5] Parliament, op.cit. [6] Adam Tomkins, Public Law (1st edn, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 160 [7] Ibid. [8] Ibid. [9] Philip Norton, Baron Norton of Louth,The Commons in Perspective(1st, Longman, 1981) 119 [10] Tomkins, op. cit. [11] Erskine Mayà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Treatise on the Law, Privilege, Proceedings and usage of Parliament (24th edn)( London: LexisNexis, 2011), p. 358. [12] Roger Masterman, Colin Murray,Expl oring Constitutional and Administrative Law(1st, Pearson, Harlow 2013) 606 [13] Tomkins, op.cit., 161 [14] ibid [15] Ibid 161 [16] Ibid 161 [17] I, Budge, I Crewe, D McKay, K Newton,The New British Politics(14th, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow 2007) 425 [18] Tomkins, op. cit. 162 [19] J. Levy. Strengthening Parliamentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Power of Scrutiny? An assessment of the introduction of Public Bill Committees, (London, University College London, 2009),15 [20] Tomkins, op.cit. 166 [21] Tomkins, op. cit., 167 [22] Tomkins op. cit., 168 [23] Levy, op. cit., 17 [24] Levy, op. cit., 17 [25] Masterman, op. cit. 606