Evaluate the view that backbenchers are more relevant today

Backbenchers are MPs that do not hold ministerial or shadow-ministerial positions. They occupy the benches behind party leaders in the debating chamber, and their main role is to represent their constituency and to generally support the leader of their party. However, in recent years political commentators have suggested that backbench MPs have become more significant within Parliament, particularly in their role of scrutinising the government and holding the executive to account. This view that they are now more relevant today can be supported by the coalition government since 2010 that have forced Prime Ministers to take their standpoints into account, as well as the weaker minority governments led by May and Johnson. This political situation has coincided with reforms and adjustments that have given backbench MPs more power. Despite this, they do remain limited by their position in the Commons and the patronage power held by the executive. Yet undoubtedly, they are more relevant today, than in previous years.

One of the key roles of backbench MPs is scrutiny of the government and specific departments. Since 1978, select committees have been a way for backbenchers to fulfil this role, and hold political figures to account. Select Committees are when a small group of MPs are selected to investigate a specific topic area in significant detail and produce a report or recommendation based on their findings. However, in recent years select committees have risen in status and effectiveness, making backbench MPs more relevant. This is largely due to the Wright Reforms that were enacted in 2010, which focused on improving areas in parliament. One key reform was the introduction of secret ballot voting for members of select committees. This prevents party whips from influencing which MPs are appointed to the position of chair or to any place on the committee. As well as making them more democratic, this change has seen select committees rise in authority, legitimacy, and independence, strengthening the impact backbench MPs can have in the political system. Evidence of this can be seen with various MPs now favouring select committees as an attractive alternative to a career in ministerial office. Jeremy Hunt recently put his ministerial career on hold to apply for chair of the health and social care committee and was elected to this role. Margaret Hodge, who led the Public Accounts Committee between 2010-2015, said that she had “much more influence in that role than as a government minister”. Certainly, the impact Select Committees can have is not underestimated. As well as being televised and widely accessible to the public, they have seen MPs being held to account and their political careers affected by their interview with a Committee. Amber Rudd resigned from her role within the government, shortly after being interviewed by the Home Affairs Select Committee over her targets for immigration control. Yvette Cooper asked her when targets had been set, to which she responded: “we have no targets”. This was quickly proved to be a ‘mistruth’, and she was called into the Commons to respond to a serious line of questioning regarding the matter. This represents the rising relevance of select committees in recent years, which has been aided by the secret ballot elections of its members, thus giving backbenchers an effective way to hold other MPs to account, and have an impact in Parliament.

Despite the recent success of select committees, they can only be effective if the government agrees with their verdict, and this does limit the rising relevance of backbench MPs a little. A study estimated that the government agrees with 40% of recommendations made by Select Committees, yet many of these cases do not involve a major policy change, so their effectiveness can be questioned. As well as this, the Executive does have the power to block witnesses being called for questioning, such as in 2013 when Theresa May stopped the Head of MI5, Andrew Parker, from being interviewed. This is a check on the power backbench MPs have within select committees, as the ultimate power still lies with the Prime Minister. The Government’s failure to act on the findings of Select Committees can be seen after the Intelligence Committee found indisputable evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum, yet the government have so far refused to act on it, with Boris Johnson blocking the report on their findings being released before the December 2019 election. Additionally, Select Committees have been accused of being more about public show, than for effective scrutiny. In recent years have interviewed several high profile businessmen and celebrities, such as Rupert Murdoch and Philip Green, and this has led to accusations that they are too theatrical in their approach, and it undermines their overall purpose. This is a limitation on the claim that backbenchers are more relevant today, yet the importance of select committees has undoubtedly increased in recent times.

The Wright Reforms of 2010 also saw the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee. This ensures that backbench MPs can choose the topic for debate on 35 days of each Parliamentary session. This increases their relevance as they can select topics that may not have otherwise been chosen, often based around e-petitions signed by their own constituents. For example, in 2015 a debate was held that led to the introduction of “Harvey’s Law”, which required the highway agency to notify the owners of pets who had been killed on the road. Thus, the Business Committee has bettered the role backbenchers have in Parliament, giving them more power to influence legislation. Additionally, the rise of social media use has been beneficial for backbench MPs. Whereas in the past, it was only possible to engage with your local MP through letter correspondence or the occasional town meeting, constituents can now contact their MPs through methods such as Twitter, and backbench MPs can raise their profile online, giving them a channel through which they can exert more influence, share their opinions and hold the executive to account.

Despite the recent reforms giving backbenchers more relevance, many party leaders may still hold the view that they are little more than “lobby fodder”, undermining their significance in Parliament. Backbenchers are often tied up with party loyalty, and their influence in the Commons is limited by patronage powers, so they are still expected to toe the party line and support their leaders, regardless of their individual views. An example of this is PMQs, when backbenchers are emailed a list of pre-prepared questions in advance of the session, which they are advised to ask the Prime Minister and thus portray them in a positive light. Backbenchers usually follow this suggestion, and rarely ask questions of their own accord, demonstrating that despite increased relevance today, they are ultimately bound to their party and under their leaders’ control. In addition to this, the recent rise in relevance of backbench MPs can be accredited to the weaker governments that have presided in the Commons, such as the coalition from 2010-2015 and a few minority governments since then. This forced PM’s such as Johnson to concern himself with the views of backbenchers, as he did not have a large majority and so had to get them onside to pass legislation and make progress within the government. However, with the recent December election handing him a large majority of 80 seats, Johnson no longer needs the approval of backbench MPs, meaning they may have no choice but to return to a more passive role within Parliament.

The election of John Bercow as speaker in 2009 saw the relevance of backbench MPs increase significantly. Bercow was renowned for increasing the significance of backbenchers in the Commons, so much so he was often referred to as “the backbenchers champion”. In his first 5 years as speaker, Bercow allowed for 159 urgent questions to be asked by backbenchers, compared to just 42 by Speaker Martin in his final five years as speaker prior to Bercow. Urgent questions increase the relevance of backbenchers, as it requires ministers to immediately answer questions deemed to be important, without any prior notice. Bercow supported this with additional measures, such as the granting of many more emergency debates, which could be called by backbenchers. This gave more power to them within the Commons, as they could more effectively scrutinise other MPs and the government and force them to discuss topics that backbenchers felt were significant. These changes have coincided with a sharp increase in backbench rebellions, with the coalition government in particular often having to create policies in line with the views of backbenchers, to avoid backlash. In 2014, when they tried to push forward a House of Lords reform bill, it was scrapped after a backbench rebellion pressured the government to withdraw it. This is evidence of the increased relevance of backbench MPs in Parliament today.

Although these changes have had a positive impact for backbenchers, it could be argued that after Bercow’s resignation before the election last year, many of these privileges awarded to backbenchers may be under threat, as the new Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, may not be so supportive of backbench authority in Parliament. It must also be noted that patronage powers ultimately give the government the ability to rule over backbench MPs, and this discourages them from taking action that may stray from the party line. In November 2019, when 21 Conservative MPs rebelled against Johnson by signing an Act that delayed Brexit and ruled out a No-Deal exit, he responded by expelling them from the party. The rebelling ministers included 2 former chancellors and Winston Churchill’s grandson, yet these members were no longer welcome in the Party and had to run as Independents in the recent election. This laid down a precedent that although the relevance of backbench MPs has undeniably increased in recent years, the power of the Executive will still limit their ability to fully scrutinise and hold it to account, and encourage backbenchers to simply support their party leaders and not “rebel” in the manner these Tory MPs did.

To conclude, it cannot be questioned that backbenchers have become more relevant today. A combination of factors, such as the Wright Reforms, Bercow’s influence, and weak governments have allowed backbenchers to more effectively fulfil their role of not just scrutinising the government and other MPs, but also better represent the views of their constituents through mediums such as the Backbench Business Committee. This increase in power has overseen a rise in backbench rebellions, as well as legislative changes being led by backbenchers that would not have been possible without the changes introduced to give them more power in Parliament. It is important to recognise that their newfound influence is capped - the patronage powers of the government ultimately prevent them from having complete effectiveness in their roles. Despite this, they can still scrutinise much more effectively through the reformed select committees and methods such as urgent questions and emergency debates that were nowhere near as effective or successful in the past. For these reasons, it can be argued that to a large extent, backbenchers are more relevant today.

Callum Conway-Shaw