Your Politics Guide

A backbencher is a Member of Parliament (in either House) who does not hold a government office or a front-bench opposition position. They sit on the "back benches" behind their party's front-bench team. Despite not being in government, backbenchers play a significant role in the legislative process and in holding the Executive to account.

• Constituency Representation — Backbenchers represent the interests of their constituents. They raise local and national issues in the House, hold constituency "surgeries" where they meet with members of the public, write to ministers on behalf of constituents, and ask questions in Parliament. This direct link between the public and Parliament is a cornerstone of representative democracy.
• Private Members' Bills — Backbenchers can introduce their own legislation through Private Members' Bills. Although these rarely become law without government support, they can raise the profile of important issues and pressure the government to act.
  
  Case Study — Abortion Act 1967: The Liberal MP David Steel introduced this as a Private Member's Bill, which legalised abortion under certain conditions. It succeeded because the government provided parliamentary time for its passage.
  
  Case Study — Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965: The Labour backbencher Sydney Silverman introduced this bill, which suspended the death penalty for murder in England, Scotland, and Wales. It became permanent in 1969.
• Backbench Rebellions — Backbenchers can defy the party whip and vote against their own government. When this happens on a large scale, it can defeat the government or force it to change course. Rebellions are significant because they demonstrate that the government cannot always take its own MPs for granted.
  
  Case Study — Brexit Rebellions (2017–2019): During the passage of Brexit legislation, Conservative backbenchers repeatedly rebelled against the government of Theresa May. In January 2019, her EU Withdrawal Agreement was defeated by 230 votes — the largest government defeat in modern parliamentary history — with 118 Conservative MPs voting against their own government.
• The Backbench Business Committee — Created in 2010 following the recommendations of the Wright Committee, this committee allocates time for debates chosen by backbenchers on topics that would not otherwise be debated in government time. By the end of the 2010–2015 Parliament, it had scheduled around 300 debates on topics ranging from prisoner voting rights to the Hillsborough disaster. This gives backbenchers a genuine role in setting the parliamentary agenda.
• Backbenchers in the House of Lords — The Lords includes a significant group of crossbench peers (around 20% of the House) who are not affiliated with any political party. They were appointed for their expertise rather than their political allegiance, and their votes are often decisive in close divisions. Because crossbenchers cannot be "whipped" by any party, they represent a genuinely independent force in Parliament.

Parliamentary privilege is a set of constitutional rights and immunities that allow Members of Parliament to carry out their duties without interference from outside bodies, including the courts.

• Freedom of Speech — Under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, anything said in parliamentary debates and proceedings cannot be questioned or used as the basis of a legal action in any court. This means MPs and Lords can speak freely in Parliament without fear of being sued for defamation or prosecuted for what they say. This protection is essential because it allows parliamentarians to raise issues of public concern, challenge the government, and represent their constituents without restriction.
• Exclusive Cognisance — Each House of Parliament has the exclusive right to control its own proceedings and internal affairs without interference from the courts. This includes the right to discipline its own members and to regulate its procedures.
• Significance — Parliamentary privilege ensures that Parliament can function as an effective check on the Executive and on powerful private interests. Without it, MPs could be deterred from raising controversial issues or challenging powerful individuals.
• Case Studies:
  • Ryan Giggs Super-Injunction (2011): The footballer Ryan Giggs had obtained a super-injunction preventing the media from reporting details of his private life. The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming used parliamentary privilege to name Giggs in the House of Commons, bypassing the court order. This demonstrated that parliamentary privilege overrides the authority of the courts within the parliamentary context.
  • Peter Hain and Philip Green (2018): The Labour peer Lord Hain used parliamentary privilege in the House of Lords to name the businessman Sir Philip Green as the individual behind a court injunction relating to allegations of sexual harassment and racial abuse. Lord Hain argued it was in the public interest for the identity to be disclosed. This case reignited debate about whether privilege is being used appropriately or whether it can be abused to circumvent the legal process.

Select committees are one of the most important mechanisms through which Parliament scrutinises the work of the government. They are small, cross-party groups of MPs or Lords that investigate specific issues or oversee the work of government departments.

Departmental Select Committees

• There is a departmental select committee for each major government department (e.g. the Health and Social Care Select Committee, the Treasury Select Committee, the Home Affairs Select Committee). These committees examine the spending, policies, and administration of their respective departments.
• Each committee typically has 11 members, and membership is divided proportionally between the parties based on their share of seats in the House of Commons.
• Since 2010, following the Wright Committee reforms, the chairs of most select committees are elected by the whole House through a secret ballot, rather than being appointed by party whips. This has significantly increased the independence and authority of committee chairs.
• By tradition, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee is a member of the opposition party, while a member of the governing party leads the Treasury Select Committee.

How Select Committees Work

• Committees conduct inquiries into topics within their remit. As part of these inquiries, they gather written and oral evidence from government officials, experts, interest groups, and members of the public.
• They have the power to summon witnesses and request documents, although they have no legal power to compel attendance from individuals outside Parliament.
• At the end of an inquiry, the committee publishes a report with its findings and recommendations. The government is expected to respond to the report, usually within 60 days.
• Research suggests that approximately 30–40% of select committee recommendations are eventually adopted as government policy, making them a significant influence on the legislative process.

Cross-Cutting Committees

• Some committees have a remit that spans multiple departments. The Public Accounts Committee scrutinises government spending across all departments, supported by the National Audit Office. The Environmental Audit Committee examines the environmental impact of government policies regardless of department.
• The Liaison Committee is made up of the chairs of all select committees and has the unique role of questioning the Prime Minister directly, usually twice a year.

Effectiveness and Limitations

• Case Study — Phone Hacking Inquiry: The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee summoned Rupert Murdoch and his son James Murdoch to give evidence about the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World. The committee's inquiry put enormous public and political pressure on the Murdoch media empire and contributed to the closure of the newspaper and the establishment of the Leveson Inquiry.
• Case Study — Windrush Scandal (2018): The Home Affairs Select Committee investigated the treatment of the Windrush generation, who had been wrongly classified as illegal immigrants by the Home Office. The committee's work helped to expose the scale of the injustice and contributed to the resignation of Home Secretary Amber Rudd.
• Limitations: Committees cannot legally compel attendance — Mark Zuckerberg, for example, declined to appear before a committee investigating Facebook's role in disinformation. Committee recommendations are not binding, and the government can choose to ignore them. Committees also have limited resources and staff compared to the departments they scrutinise.

• His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition — The Official Opposition is the largest party in the House of Commons that is not in government. Its leader is formally recognised as the Leader of the Opposition, a constitutional position that is paid from public funds. The Leader of the Opposition has the right to respond to the Prime Minister's statements and leads questioning at PMQs.
• The Shadow Cabinet — The Opposition forms a Shadow Cabinet that mirrors the structure of the government. Each Shadow Secretary of State is responsible for scrutinising the work of a specific government department. This system ensures that the government faces informed and organised criticism on every area of policy.
• Opposition Days — The Opposition is allocated 20 days per parliamentary session to choose the topics for debate in the House of Commons. Of these, 17 days are given to the Official Opposition and 3 days to the third-largest party. Opposition Day debates allow the opposition to highlight government failures, propose alternative policies, and put political pressure on the government, although votes on Opposition Day motions are not binding on the government.
• Challenging Legislation — The Opposition can vote against government bills, propose amendments at every stage of the legislative process, and divide the House to force recorded votes. Even when the opposition cannot defeat the government (due to the government's majority), the process of debate and amendment ensures that legislation is scrutinised and the government is forced to justify its decisions publicly.
• Government-in-Waiting — The Opposition presents itself as a credible alternative government, ready to take power if the current government loses a general election or a vote of no confidence. This function is essential for democratic accountability because it ensures voters always have a choice between at least two potential governments.

Debates About the Effectiveness of the Opposition

• Arguments that the opposition is effective: It provides a visible and organised challenge to the government; Opposition Days ensure key issues are debated; the Shadow Cabinet provides informed scrutiny; the opposition holds the government to account through PMQs and debates.
• Arguments that the opposition is limited: A government with a large majority can easily outvote the opposition; Opposition Day motions are not binding; the government controls the parliamentary timetable; media attention often focuses on government announcements rather than opposition criticism.
  
  Case Study — The 2019–2024 Parliament: Boris Johnson's Conservative government had an 80-seat majority after the 2019 general election, which meant the Labour opposition was unable to defeat the government on any major vote. This demonstrated the limitations of parliamentary opposition when the government commands a large and disciplined majority.

Ministerial Question Time

• Ministers from each government department attend the House of Commons on a rota basis to answer oral questions from MPs. Question time takes place on sitting days:
  • Monday: 2:35pm – 3:35pm
  • Tuesday: 11:35am – 12:35pm
  • Wednesday: 11:35am – 12:35pm
  • Thursday: 9:35am – 10:35am
• MPs can also submit written questions, which require a written response from the relevant minister. Thousands of written questions are submitted each parliamentary session and ministers are obliged to respond.
• The Speaker can grant urgent questions on matters of pressing public concern. These require a minister to come to the House and make a statement, even if it was not scheduled. Urgent questions have become more common in recent years, reflecting growing backbench assertiveness.

Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs)

• PMQs take place every Wednesday at 12:00pm–12:30pm when the House of Commons is sitting. It is the highest-profile regular event in the parliamentary calendar.
• The Leader of the Opposition is permitted to ask six questions. The leader of the third-largest party (currently the Liberal Democrats) is allowed two questions. Other MPs may also be called by the Speaker to ask questions.
• Purpose — PMQs forces the Prime Minister to defend government policy in public and under pressure. It allows the opposition to challenge the PM directly and provides backbenchers with an opportunity to raise constituency issues or matters of national concern. The session is broadcast live and often dominates the news cycle.

Criticisms of PMQs

• "Punch and Judy" politics: PMQs is frequently criticised for being excessively adversarial and theatrical. Both sides often prioritise scoring political points over genuine scrutiny, leading to a confrontational atmosphere that many argue undermines the dignity of Parliament.
• Evasive answers: Prime Ministers are often accused of avoiding direct answers to questions, instead deflecting with pre-prepared lines or counter-attacks on the opposition. This limits the effectiveness of PMQs as a tool of accountability.
• Limited time: With only 30 minutes, PMQs allows little opportunity for detailed follow-up or in-depth scrutiny. Complex policy issues cannot be adequately examined in such a short session.
• Planted questions: Government backbenchers sometimes ask pre-approved "friendly" questions designed to allow the PM to deliver positive messages rather than face genuine scrutiny.

Questions in the House of Lords

• The House of Lords also questions government ministers, typically at the start of each day's business. However, there is no department-specific rota and no equivalent of PMQs. Lords questions are generally considered less adversarial and more focused on policy detail than their Commons equivalents, reflecting the Lords' role as a chamber of expertise and revision rather than political confrontation.