Backbenchers are MPs or Lords that are neither government ministers nor opposition Shadow spokespeople.

Here, the term ‘Impact’ should be qualified by the extent to which backbench activity has a marked effect or influence on government legislation or their actions. Since 2010, it can be competently argued that the role and activism of backbenchers has increased, and thus their impact on parliament becoming widely recognised. This is partly due to the Wright reforms, which elected committee members and most chairs via secret ballot. Furthermore, since 2010, there has been an increase in unstable governments which has amplified the influence of backbenchers, such as the 2010-2015 coalition and the 2017-2019 minority government.

Also, significant national events have increased backbenchers’ impact on parliament by providing them a sense of commitment to a cause. During the 2017–2019 parliament, backbenchers could assert themselves due to the unique combination of cross-party divisions over Brexit and a minority government. However, backbenchers will have less scope to use innovative tactics with the return of a majority government following the 2019 election. Though, the 2017–2019 parliament may have had a cultural impact in facilitating backbench activism that could be hard to reverse. As a result, backbenchers will now have to focus on using more conventional parliamentary procedures to hold the government accountable, influence debate and represent their constituents’ interests. Despite this, it is a more convincing argument to suggest that backbenchers significantly impact parliament.

Perhaps the most substantial reason it is incorrect to argue that backbenchers have little impact on parliament is due to their newly established roles on select committees. The 2010 Wright reforms introduced a secret ballot for electing members, and most chairs, and whips now have no part to play in selecting the composition of committees. Before these reforms, party leaders had total control over who sat on committees, often using their powers of patronage to appoint loyal members, which decreased effective scrutiny. Committees are so vital as they overlook the activities of the department they shadow: they scrutinise the running of the department, how it uses its budget and legislation it has put forward. For example, Robert Halform, the chair of the education select committee, is an independent-minded MP who has been a vocal critic of Johnson’s handling of Covid and free school meals. This level of scrutiny may not have been possible if Johnson still had the power to appoint members to committees on his own accord. Furthermore, the primary function of committees is to produce well-researched reports on investigations. The fact that the government accepts 40% of the recommendations from these reports shows how backbenchers can greatly influence legislation in implicit ways. For example, the Environmental Audits Committee’s report on the environmental damage caused by microbeads led them to be banned in 2018 under the Microbead-free Waters Act. It should be recognised that committees can give much more power and influence to MPs than just being a backbencher, and MPs are aware of this. Yvette Cooper, for example, refused to leave her position as chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee when Corbyn wanted her to be shadow home secretary. She saw that she had more influence over parliamentary decisions as chair of this committee rather than as a shadow minister. Here, it is clear that recent reforms to select committees regarding secret ballots result in a legitimate mandate allowing them to influence government effectively, which in turn shows how backbenchers do have a significant impact on parliament.

However, there are some weaknesses in the current select committee system. The government still holds a majority on committees, and even though members are not appointed like before, they still have strong party affiliations. This means their scrutiny and impact on parliament is reduced as there may be conflicts of interest between investigations and their party stances. Often the committees investigate issues that are not central to government policy, meaning their conclusions aren't as effective in impacting parliament. There is usually a lot of focus on large corporations rather than on government decisions. For example, when Margaret Hodge was chair of the public accounts committee, she brought in Mike Ashley, CEO of the Fraser Group plc, to investigate Sports Direct's working conditions, and after this, its share price plummeted. Furthermore, the sports select committee determined that the Yorkshire Cricket Club was institutionally racist, and while this is an important finding, it doesn't impact parliament. As well as this, the government is not bound by the confirmation hearings of select committees whereby they determine whether people are suitable for becoming head of a public body. For example, it was determined by the education select committee that Caroline Spellman was not fit to head Ofsted, however, the government put her in this position anyway.

Even though there are some weaknesses to the current select committee system, since the Wright reforms in 2010, backbenchers have become far more able to hold the government to account and are much more effective in parliament.

Historically, backbenchers were regarded as nothing but lobby fodder and were told what to do by party whips. However, since 2010, backbenchers have become increasingly assertive due to: minority governments (2017), small majorities (2015) and the coalition government (2010). Because of this increase in unstable governments, backbenchers have become far more important to parties to achieve majorities and enact their manifesto; parties in this system cannot alienate them. Brexit has also given many backbenchers a sense of commitment to a cause. Blair, with a vast majority of 179, only lost four divisions in the commons in 10 years, and these were in the last two years of his premiership when he was losing control. However, May lost 33 divisions between 2017 and 2019 alone, resulting from a concoction of minority government and Brexit. Furthermore, the issue of significant national events has increased backbenchers' rebellion, thus affecting the government's ability to enact legislation. For example, 99 Tories rebelled against Covid passports in December 2021. Additionally, far more minor in number but more consequential for Boris Johnson’s reputation was the Rashford rebellion. After a damaging row and U-turn over the summer, five Conservative MPs voted with Labour on extending free school meals, after another compelling campaign by the footballer. Those who did not rebel found themselves in the middle of another social media storm and another eventual U-turn by No 10 – leading to widespread anger at the ineptitude of Johnson’s response. Moreover, Boris Johnson’s Nationality and Borders Bill has suffered four defeats in the House of Lords, including the removal of a crucial plank of the government’s immigration strategy. Clause 11 of the bill would have allowed refugees to be divided into two classes based on how they arrived in the UK. Peers voted by 204 to 126, defeating the clause by a majority of 78. This shows how increasing activism from backbenchers is having a significant impact on parliament.

However, it can be argued that this is just an exception. Due to the nature of FPTP, it tends to produce strong governments, like Boris securing a majority of 80 in 2019. So the examples of unstable governments are inadequate in proving that backbenchers greatly impact parliament. Furthermore, ultimately, the government retains conclusive power. For instance, in 2019, 21 MPs such as Rory Stewart and Amber Rudd were expelled from the conservative party over voting against a no Brexit deal. The idea that governments have the ultimate power is supported even within unstable governments. The phrase “elective dictatorship” was used by former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, in a speech at the BBC in 1976 to describe how the Labour Government of the time was using its slim hold of the Commons to pass bills. Given that governments with small majorities don’t reflect broad support in the country, this, according to Hailsham, is undemocratic. Moreover, legislative bill committees are all appointed by party leaders, counteracting some of the Wright reforms and allowing leaders to receive inadequate scrutiny.

Although it may have been the case that with passing legislation in the past, backbenchers have been very weak, today, they are far more willing to stand up to party whips and leadership.

A final way that backbenchers can be said to have a significant impact on parliament is by holding the government accountable through PMQs and urgent questions(UQs). During the 2007-08 parliamentary session, only four UQs were asked. In contrast, MPs asked 307 UQs during the 2017–19 session, covering a diverse range of topics, from free TV licences for the over-75s to the gender pay gap. Brexit accounted for 14% of questions granted during the 2017– 19 session, and 30% during the short 2019 session. The increase in UQs has provided far more frequent opportunities for backbenchers to raise matters of urgent importance and receive a timely response from a minister. During the 2017–19 session, ministers spent over 196 hours in the Commons answering questions at short notice. The greater willingness of the former Commons Speaker, John Bercow, to grant UQs is likely to have been the most significant driver of the increase. He has said that he allowed more UQs to empower backbenchers to hold the government accountable. He granted an average of 0.4 UQs per sitting day during his tenure as Speaker, compared to his predecessor, Michael Martin, who gave just 0.07 per sitting day. UQs have long acted as a useful political tool for the opposition because they provide an opportunity to take control of part of the parliamentary agenda and secure a government response. This was particularly useful during the 2017–19 parliament when the government chose not to schedule any opposition days. Furthermore, in PMQs, backbenchers have shown themselves to be more ready to ask difficult questions. For example, David Davis stated, ‘for god's sake resign’ about Johnson and the partygate scandal. This shows how backbenchers are having a large impact on parliament. Although the government still controls these areas, MPs have become far more assertive and independent in recent years.

To conclude, it is clear that the influence of backbenchers has increased over the past two decades. This is mainly due to the Wright reforms and the increase in unstable governments, however, national crises also play a part in the rise of activism of backbenchers. Backbenchers have some limitations, partly because the government retains sole authority, and select committees are not infallible to mistakes. Though overall, it can be argued it is wrong to suggest that backbenchers have little impact on parliament.

Eloise Lauders