House of Commons knowledge flashcards

In the 2019 General Election the House of Commons comprised 650 MPs. Each MP represents a constituency. The number of MPs in the commons does change, depending on the different boundaries. The number of MPs in the commons is determined by the Boundary Commission, on the request of Parliament. The makeup of the house of commons at the 2019 general election was …

265 Conservative (+47), 202 Labour (-60), 48 SNP (+13), 11 Lib dem (-1) and 8 DUP (-2)

Sinn Fein are an abstentionist party. This means they don’t take their seats in the House Commons. This, and the position of speaker and deputy speakers who don’t vote in divisions, mean that …

there is a difference between a simple majority and a working majority. As there are 650 seats in Parliament a party needs to win 326 seats for a simple majority. However, as the speakers and three deputies don’t vote alongside Sinn Fein, this impacts the majority needed to win a division. This means that in the 2019 elections, and likely in the next election, the government needs only 320 MPs for a working majority.

The size of the majority won during a General Election are not guaranteed throughout a parliament. The resignation, death or removal of an MP through the withdrawal of the whip can significantly reduce a majority. For example, since the 2019 GE the conservative majority of 80 has been reduced because they lost the seat of North Shropshire to the Lib Dems in a by-election, Christian Wakeford crossed the floor to join Labour and Rob Roberts had the whip withdrawn for misconduct. When becoming PM in …

1976 Callaghan had a small majority but a number of by-election defeats and defections saw this reduced. In 1979 he lost a motion of no confidence by 311-310, something that would likely not have happened if he had his original majority.

One long-standing criticism of the House of Commons is that it does not adequately represent the amke-up of Britain as a whole. This criticism remains in place, however, it does appear to be improving: 

The 2019 election marked the first time a major party had had more female than male MPs as the Labour Party had 51% female MPs. Arguments do exist on both sides as to whether or not the descriptive representation of the commons matters:

As of the 2024 GE, there are 200 female MPs (33.8%) compared to 208 in 2017 and 191 in 2015. There are 65 ethnic minority MPs (9.6%) compared to 41 in 2015 and 5 disabled MPs compared to 8 in 2017 and 6 in 2015. Also …

there are 351 MPs from comprehensive schools (54%) compared to 331 in 2017 and 46 LGBT MPs compared to 45 and 32 in 2017 and 2015 respectively. 

Representation in the commons can be argued to be important because a more representative Commons will be better able to empathise with the issues facing them and their communities, it may give more minorities faith in the work of parliament, it is dangerous for democracy if …

parliament is dominated by a certain demographic. If certain groups are excluded, they feel cut off from the political process, when certain groups are excluded there are fewer discussions around the issues that affect them, too much talent currently goes unrecognised because Parliament is not opened up to all of those who can play a role and that it is hypocritical for political parties to talk up against discrimination when groups are not fairly represented in Parliament. 

It can be argued that representation is irrelevant in the Commons as some constituents will always be represented by people who are unlike them. This doesn’t mean that their MPs cannot empathise. Moreover …

good MPs are able to represent their constituents all of the time, regardless of their ethnicity, religion or gender and Britain is a representative democracy in which MPs are there to broadly reflect the views of their constituents. To do this, they do not have to mirror their constituents. 

Women and other social groups are not homogenous. Citing that there are too few women in Parliament, for example, is vague and potentially insulting. Women represent extremely diverse views and it is impossible to group them simply as a minority. Furthermore …

the personal qualities of a candidate should be what matters in elected politicians. It would be unfair to positively discriminate in favour of minorities, which would inevitably mean that high quality candidates are overlooked because they are in the majority.

MPs have no set job description. The job is what they choose to make of it. However, there are four key roles that you may expect an MP to fulfil:

• Representing their constituents.

• Supporting their party.

• Scrutinising or playing a role in government.

• Creating and debating laws.

For their role, MPs are paid £81,932 a year. They also receive an allowance to cover the expenses of running an office. They also receive expenses to account for the fact that in their job they must be …

in two places at different times. A guardian survey in 2013 found that MPs worked an average of 69 hours a week. This compared to 57.3 hours for a secondary school headteacher.

Speakers: Four MPs are speakers. This group is made up of the speaker of the house of commons and four deputy speakers. The speaker gives up his party status when he becomes speaker. The same is also expected of the deputy speakers. Currently …

the speaker is Lindsay Hoyle, formerly Labour, and deputy speakers are Eleanor Laing and Nigel Evans, who both abandoned their conservative positions. 

The Denison rule: One of the potential jobs of the speaker is to settle a tied vote in the house of commons. As a result of his stance of impartiality within the house, if a vote is ever tied in the house of commons the speaker will always vote as far as possible in line with the status quo. For instance …

the speaker, in tie, would vote against a vote of no confidence in the government. The last time that the speaker voted in a division was in April 2019 when a vote on Brexit timetabling motion was tied by 310 to 310.

The speaker of the house of commons is the presiding officer of the commons. They decide who speaks in debates and are in charge of maintaining order in the house of commons. The speaker is also responsible for …

the administration of the house of commons. For example, the speaker can recall the house of commons during a national emergency. This last happened in August 2021 to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.

The speaker also continues to sit as an MP and continues to represent his own constituents. However, they give up their party status when they are chosen to be the speaker. The speaker is chosen by their fellow MPs. When the speaker is chosen, they are ceremoniously dragged to the speakers’ chair by another MP - symbolic of the fact that they don’t want the role but we're willing to serve the house. 

The current speaker of the house of commons is Lindsay Hoyle. He took over from John Bercow in 2019. Bercow was a controversial Speaker, particularly over the issue of Brexit. 

Government ministers: Members of Parliament may also be part of the government. As such, because of the Fusion of Powers, they continue to sit in the HoC. The government currently has …

116 ministers, 82% of whom are in the commons.

The fact that government ministers also sit in the Commons and can vote in divisions lead to what is known as the Payroll vote. As a result of the convention of collective responsibility, ministers are …

expected to vote with the government. This means there are a number of votes that the government can almost always rely on in any division.

Her Majesty’s loyal opposition: The opposition is made up of the Shadow Cabinet of the party that won the second most seats in the general election. Currently …

Kemi Badenoch has 24 individuals in his Shadow Cabinet. 

Backbenchers: The rest of MPs, the vast majorities are Backbench MPs. They are called Backbenchers because they hold no role in the government or the opposition or the administration in the house of commons. They …

 traditionally sit further back in the house of commons, hence their name. They may also have positions on select committees, however.

MPs have a difficult task because they have a number of competing factors to consider, including ….

their political party, their constituency , the nation and their own conscience and interests.

 MPs almost always rely heavily on their political party to get elected to Parliament. MPS are thus largely beholden to their party for their position. In return for their help in getting elected, political parties expect loyalty in return. MPs are expected to ‘’toe the party line’ and vote in the way that the Party Leader and his whips insist. If MPs don’t do this …

they may have the ‘party whip withdrawn’ this means that they no longer sit as MPs for their political party. In addition, they may be deselected, meaning they cannot represent that party at the next GE.

(2005) Peter Law had been a Labour party member but resigned in protest at the introduction of …

all-women shortlists. His victory in Blaneau Gwent by over 9000 votes was a remarkable victory for an independent. 

(2006) Dai Davies had been Peter Laws election agent and following his passing in 2006 was …

elected in the subsequent by-election.

(1997) Martin Bell had been a war correspondent and stood in Tatton against Conservative MP Neil Hamilton who …

was embroiled in a Cash for Questions scandal. Labour and Lib Dems stood down their candidates and Bell won the election by over 11000 votes.

George Galloway was elected aa the Respect Party candidate for …

Bradford West in a 2012 by-election. Galloway had previously won the Bethnal Green and Bow for Respect. 

 Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless were elected as UKIP candidates in by-elections in 2015. Both had forced …

a by-election after leaving the conservative party. In the 2015 election, Carswell became the only UKIP to win a seat at a general election.

In January 2023, Andrew Bridgen had the Conservative whip withdrawn following …

 bizarre and offensive tweets about vaccines. He was later expelled from the conservative party.

In January 2022, Anne Marie Morris had the whip withdrawn after …

being the only Conservative to vote for a Labour motion to cut VAT on energy bills.

In 2019 Boris Johnson removed the whip from 21 of his MPs after they voted with the Labour party to take control of the parliamentary agenda over Brexit. Those removed included ….

included former chancellor Philip Hammond, party Grandee Ken Clarke and the grandson of Churchill, Nicholas Soames.

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had the whip withdrawn by Keir Starmer after he said that …

 antisemitism in the labour party was not as bad as it had been portrayed and that its portrayal was part of a political attack. 

In 2003, George Galloway had his Labour whip withdrawn after …

 encouraging british troops to defy orders during the Iraq war - which Galloway vehemently opposed. In 2005 he formed a new party, Respect, and was reelected as an MP.

Examples of MP deselction:

Sam Tarry (Labour) - Sam Tarry was deselected by his local constituency party in October 2022.

Bob Wareing (Labour) - He was a labour MP from 1983 until 2010. However, in 2007 he was deselected after breaking the rules of lobbying. He did not run in the 2010 GE. 

Anne Mackintosh (Conservative) - In January 2014, McIntosh lost a vote of no confidence in her local conservative party and was deselected as its candidate in the 2015 GE.

Tim Yeo (Conservative) - In 2014 Tim Yeo was deselected by his local conservative party after it had been argued that he didn’t spend enough time focusing on constituency issues.

There is a very powerful whipping system in the House of Commons. The parties have a series of MPs known as the Whips who …

 are responsible for ensuring party discipline. Traditionally, they do this by underlining the Order Paper a number of times depending on how important it is that one of their MPs votes - there are 1,2 and 3 line whips.

One Line whips mean MPs don’t have to attend or vote but if they do should vote in line with the party. Two line whips mean …

MPs must attend unless they are otherwise engaged. Three line whips mean MPs must attend the vote and must vote the way the whips wish at risk of punishment. 

MPs generally rarely rebel against their own party because…

• The whips have enormous power. If an MP wants to advance their career in Parliament, they will not want to upset the whips.

• MPs understand that party unity is …

• … very important. MPs know that rebelling can reduce the appearance of a unified party and in turn harm their own electoral prospects.

• MPs are likely to share the broad ideological position with their party and therefore willing to compromise on some of their own beliefs to stay loyal.

Some MPs are willing to rebel, either because they …

 believe so strongly in a particular issue that they feel they have no choice morally, or because they are less concerned with their future advancement.

As of 1st May 2023, there are 319 MPs who have never rebelled since the December 2019 GE. However, it should be noted, this includes government ministers and opposition ministers who are …

 bound by the convention of collective responsibility. For example, Conservative MP Jerome Mayhew has never rebelled since 2019 and Labour MP Cat Smith has only rebelled twice since 2015. This siad, many backbench MPs rebel often such as David Davis, who has rebelled 66 of 531 times (12.4%) and Christopher Chope, who has rebelled in 8.9% of all divisions. The biggest 45 rebels were all Conservative and only 3 SNP MPs had rebelled and all only once. 

In 2005 an amendment to New Labours Terrorism Bill planned to allow the police to detain terror suspects without charge for up to 90 days. This was defeated by 322-291 after…

49 Labour MPs rebelled. Similalrly, in 2012, an amendment that would call for a real terms cut in the EU budget was passed by 307 to 294 after 53 conservative MPs rebelled.

In 2018, Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement was defeated by …

432 to 230 in January 2019. This was a historic defeat and happened after 118 conservative MPs rebelled.

Sometimes an MP will abstain from a voter rather than rebel. As an abstaining MP, they will not show in either the Aye or Noe column. Abstaining can be seen as a soft rebelion, as while they don’t vote with their party, they don’t vote with the opposition either. However, voting against their party can be seen as a hard rebellion. 

An MP will often abstain rather than vote against their party because they want to send a clear message to their party leaders without actually pushing the party towards a defeat.

Not all votes are whipped votes. Occasionally votes will be Free Votes. These are votes on which the whips agree not to tell their MPs how to vote. These votes are rare and are usually on issues that might be considered to be moral rather than political judgements. Examples of free votes in the commons are …

the 2015 assisted dying bill to legalise euthanasia in the UK under certain circumstances which was defeated by 330 to 118  and the 2013 same sex marriage bill, passed by 400 to 175.

MPs have to be careful to look after the issues that matter in their constituencies. MPs regularly hold constituency surgeries and attend constituency meetings about …

issues that affect their constituents. MPs often deal with issues on behalf of their constituents, representing their interests to government departments. However, a golden rule is that MPs by convention, only deal with their own constituents. MPs also represent everyone in their constituency, regardless of the political allegiance of their constituencies

One of the problems with the Fusion of Powers is that Government ministers may not become effective constituency MPs. Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, for example, are constituency MPs. As their government roles take all their time they leave most constituency matters to their constituency agent, meaning that ….

not all citizens in the UK are receiving equal attention from an elected MP. Despite this, it is very rare for a government minister to lose their seat at a GE. in the 1997 GE five conservative government ministers lost their seat. These included Michael Poerillo, the secretary of state for defence. No PM has ever lost their seat but Conservative Leader Arthur Balfour lost his seat in 1906.

Examples of MPs supporting their constituency: John McDonell, the MP for Hayes and Harington has been a consistent critic of the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport because of the negative implications it would have on his constituency. Prior to 2010, this put him in direct opposition to the policy of his own government. Ken Clarke voted against triggering Article 50 in 2017 as a result of ….

 the fact that his constituency, Rushcliffe, voted 57.6% to remain, despite a whipped vote by the conservatives and the clear indication that he would be on the losing side.

Although MPs represent their individual constituents, they also work for the entire nation. They debate and vote on laws that might not significantly affect their constituents. MPs may also sit on or chair Select Committees. Also ….

there can be a conflict between the national interest and local interest. One of the things that MPs have to try to do is make a judgement in these circumstances.

In recent years Parliament has voted for a major infrastructure project called High Speed Rail 2 (HS”). This plan involves a major rail line between London and Northern Cities such as Leeds and Manchester. Many MPs represent …

constituencies which will have to have homes and businesses destroyed to make room for the new rail line. However, they voted largely for the HS2 bill as they believed it would be in the national interest.

In June 2016 52% of voters chose to leave the EU, however it is estimated that 418 constituencies out of 650 had a majority in favour of remaining. This means when …

considering the Brexit result and triggering Article 50 many MPs had to vote against the wishes of their constituents. But only 114 MPs voted against the article 50 bill.

MPs might have their own interests and preferences. They might also introduce their own attempts to change the law, called Private Member Bills. Sometimes, however, MPs can act on behalf of Special Interest Groups. MPs are consistently lobbied by people who want their views represented in Parliament. In 2013 …

 the Marriage Act was passed by Parliament by 359 to 154. This legalised gay marriage in the UK and gave it equal status under the law to heterosexual marriage. This bill was vigorously opposed by Sir Gerald Howarth, the then MP for Aldershot, who made clear that he was opposed to this bill on moral grounds.

Britain is a representative democracy, meaning MPs are elected to represent their constituents. However, Britain also follows a trustee model of representation. This is also sometimes called the …

Burkean model after Edmund Burke. In this trustee model of representation MPs don’t have to vote as the majority of their constituents might want.

The official opposition is an important part of the UK political process. The opposition has three main roles:

• Scrutinising and opposing the government.

• Supporting the government when necessary.

• Providing an alternative.

As the name suggests, the key role of the opposition is to oppose the government. Ways it might do this include:

• Voting against government proposals.

• Putting amendments on government legislation.

• Putting questions to ministers at question time and when required submitting urgent questions.

• Putting forwards its own legislation using its allocated parliamentary time.

Labour opposed Rishi Sunak’s government on the restrictions on protesting in the Peace, Crime and Sentencing bill as well as …

changes in the Nationality and Borders Bill that puts greater restrictions on asylum seekers. 

The opposition is given a number of tools through which to support its scrutinising function. These include:

• Salaried members - both the leader and chief whip of the opposition are paid a salary for their roles.

• Parliamentary Time - 17 days in each parliamentary session are given by the speaker to the leader of the opposition for them to use as they please.

Short money: the party that forms the opposition are given state funding, known as short money. This is part of a broader range of state money given to all opposition parties in parliament. They receive:

• £19,401 for every seat won at the last election.

• £38.75 for every 200 votes won at the last election.

• £213,133 for travel expenses apportioned amongst parties depending on their seats and votes.

In addition, the leader of the opposition receives £903,907 for running their office.

• In total for 2022/23 the Labour party receive £6.9 million in short money. Opposition parties in the house of lords also receive cranborne money.

• The opposition also forms a shadow cabinet through which to directly scrutinise different government departments. 

Despite it’s main aim being to oppose the government, there  are times when it is expected that it will work with the government. This is particularly the case during …

during a national crisis. When the two leading parties work together in parliament, it is known as being bipartisan.

Examples of bipartisanship in parliament include ….

2003 - the Iraq war resolution in march 2003 was passed by 412 to 149 and was a Bipartisan vote. 

2010 - loans to Ireland deal. An agreement to loan £2.35 billion to ireland that was supported by all but 2 Labour MPs,

2011 - terrorist tracking bill that gave the UK government access to suspected terrorists bank accounts. The bill was backed by 180 labour MPs.

2017 - a vote in favour of an early general election sa 522 votes for and only 13 against.

2022 - during the russia-ukraine crisis the labour party supported in full the sanctions put in place against the putin regime.

The opposition is also expected to provide an alternative to the government. The existence of the shadow cabinet allows the electorate to consider the alternatives to current government ministers and consider what an alternative government may look like. In terms of policy, the differences normally become ….

most stark during a general election campaign when the electorate are asked to make a clear judgement on the policies of the government and opposition.

 In recent general elections key differences have been that the Conservatives promised no rises in income tax, national insurance or VAT in 2019 whereas Labour promised a new 50% income tax rate on income over £125,000. However, sometimes it can be difficult for opposition parties to provide a clear alternative as they may worry the government will steal this idea. For example,….

 in 2007 the Conservative party in opposition announced in their party conference that they were going to reform inheritance tax. At the Queen’s speech in 2007, Gordon Brown’s government announced the same plan. David Cameron asked Gordon Brown at the queen speech debate “can the PM look me in the eye and say that you were planning to reform inheritance tax before our party conference” and accused Labour of stealing the policy.

Limits on the opposition: However good the opposition is, there are a number of limits on them. These include:

• The opposition have normally just lost an election and are blamed for many of the problems the government is trying to fix. This makes it difficult for them to criticise the government and be credible.

• The government sets the political agenda in parliament. The government can take opposition policies if they are good enough. The leader of the opposition might not want to give away his best ideas until the general election is due, however, this makes people think he is not providing a credible alternative.

• Only 17 days during each session are given to HM Opposition to set the parliamentary agenda

• The opposition lacks the infrastructure of government that is available to the party in power. The government has an army of civil servants and political advisors (such as SPADS ‘special advisors’ to support them). The opposition does not have access to the civil service and cannot always afford as many advisors as the government.

The opposition is often divided. It is easier to change a leader of the opposition than a PM. Only one PM has been removed since 1997; this was voluntarily, by Tony Blair. In this time this time there were a number of leaders of the Opposition removed:

• William Hague

• Iain Duncan-Smith

• Michael Howard

There are some clear strengths of the role of the Opposition in providing scrutiny:

• The media presence that the Opposition have, particularly through the leader of the opposition, allows them to bring significant media attention to an issue. 

• An effective government can show itself to be a ‘government in waiting’ - an example of this is Blair’s shadow cabinet between 1994 and 1997. This increases the seeming legitimacy of the scrutiny of the government.

The opposition have often just lost an election and are disunited and trying to find their feet again. They can often be blamed for what went before as a deflection from scrutiny. A good example occurred with this and economic issues under Ed Milliband. During the period of austerity between …

 2010 and 2015 Ed Miliband as leader of the opposition and Ed Balls as chancellor of the exchequer could not escape the line of attack that they were responsible for the financial mess the conservatives argued that they were left of.

Opposition debates are often attended just by the party in opposition with the government just abstaining from any vote. The last time a government lost…

a contested opposition day vote was in 2009 and before that it was 1978. 

A government with a large majority can largely ignore the opposition. When Blair had a majority of 179 in 1997 he faced William Hague as leader of the opposition. Hague was undoubtedly…

capable and a hugely impressive house of commons operator. However, the arithmetic of the house of commons severely limited the scrutiny he could offer. 

The strength of the opposition often relies significantly on its leader and a poor leader can undermine its credibility. This was notably the case under …

Jeremy Corbyn who had a disunited party and a mainstream media that were hostile to his policy agenda. 

Political parties are an important part of the way that the House of Commons operates. In Britain, the nature of politics practiced is adversarial politics. This means that…

 the government is directly opposed by the opposition. Whips are members of the political parties who are responsible for enforcing party discipline. Parties have a number of whips, headed by a chief whip. The importance of the government chief whip is perhaps shown by the house he is given - Number 9 Downing Street

One of the ways the whips work is by clearly noting down how their MPs are expected to vote on a particular issue. They do this by underlining the motion on the parliamentary order paper that is given to MPs each day:

One line, two line and three line whips. 

A three line whip is a strict strict instruction to attend and to vote in the way that the party suggests. Not attending and voting in the correct way may result in party disciplinary action and is a major news event. Whips also have a role to play when the voting actually takes place. Whips stand outside the division lobbies, checking that …

their MPs go into the right one. Sometimes, if someone cannot attend a vote, a whip will request they are paired with someone from another party who would have voted differently. Neither of the pair will then vote, thus cancelling each other out. 

Examples of the use of ‘three line whips’ include in October 2011 a motion in the commons demanding for a referendum on UK membership of the EU. David Cameron ordered a three line whip for his MPs to oppose this motion. Despite this, 81 conservative MPs voted against the government - thereby ignoring David Cameron’s instructions. Similarly …

 in 2014 Ed Miliband ordered a three-line whip for his MP to recognise the statehood of Palestine. By contrast, David Cameron gave Conservatives a ‘Free Vote’. This motion passed by 274 to 12. In March 2017, Jeremy Corbyn ordered a three-line whip for his MPs to vote in favour of triggering Article 50. Embarrassingly for him, 47 Labour MPs ignored his instructio

The ultimate sanction by a political party towards an MP is to ‘have the whip withdrawn’. This means that the MP in question no longer sits in the House of Commons as a representative of the party in question. In 1994, eight conservative MPs had the whip withdrawn by John Major’s chief whip for voting against the Maastricht treaty which saw …

 the reformation of the EEC as the EU. In 2003, George Galloway had his whip withdrawn for his vehement criticism of the Labour Party’s position on Iraq. in 2013, Liberal Democrat MP David Ward had the whip withdrawn for his comments over the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. 

Traditionally, backbench MPs have been considered quite weak in Parliament. There are a number of reasons for this: MPs know that it is very hard to be elected in parliament without the support of a political party. Therefore, they need to keep their political party onside and not risk the wrath of the whip by rebelling against them. Also, there are very few …

 ‘free votes’ in the Commons. These are votes that are completely unwhipped. Free votes are often called conscience votes. They tend to be about issues regarding morality. These are rare, as most votes are ‘whipped votes’.  In the run-up to the 2017 General election, Theresa May promised a free vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004. In doing so, she also announced that she was personally in favour of repealing the Hunting Act. However, since then she has backed down on this promise. 

Other reasons for the weakness of backbenchers include that ….

 there is limited time placed solely for the use of backbench MPs. Currently, this amounts to 35 days, normally on a Friday where most MPs have left to go to their constituencies, party leaders have incredible powers of patronage. If a backbencher wants to advance their career in the future, they need to have the party leader onside, backbench MPs are also hampered by bad facilities. Although a new building was built for MPs in 2011 called Portcullis house, many are still based in the palace of Westminster, the complete refurbishment of which are estimated to cost over £2 billion.

A survey by the Hansard society of the 227 new MPs after the 2010 election suggested they were working an average of 69 hours a week. A poll suggested they spent more time on their constituency business than …

any other matter and spent 63% of their time in Westminster compared to 37% in their hope constituency. Parliament’s schedule each day runs to 10PM, which is particularly bad for family-life.

 Government business is extremely complex and MPs have to try to become relative experts in a wide range of fields. As a result of this …

MPs tend to focus their efforts and expertise on certain areas. This inevitably has a negative effect on their abilities elsewhere in Parliament. For example, Bill Cash, a Conservative MP, who is a prominent Eurosceptic who focuses much of his time on issues of Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Another conservative MP, John Redwood specialises in economic matters and is seen as a genuine intellectual who brings economics into an academic focus. Jonny Mercer is an ex-Army Officer who spends much of his time considering the rights of veterans and the military covenant

Despite the reliance they have on their parties, this also works two ways. Political Parties need their backbenchers onside to keep their majority or form an effective opposition to the Government. 

• Powerful bodies within the political parties allow backbenchers to have an impact on their parties, such as the parliamentary labour party.

• Recent speakers such as John Bercow and Lindsay Hoyle have been particularly proactive in looking out for the interests of backbenchers. In his first speech as Speaker, Bercow said that this was his intention. In particular, both were renowned for …

• … calling Ministers to answer urgent questions in the House of Commons. 

• The backbench business committee was set up in June 2010 to coordinate backbench MPs in organising the debates in Parliament for one day per week. This allows more issues that backbenchers are concerned about to be discussed in the House. 

• MPs are now elected to select committees, rather than chosen by the party whip. This means that they are less beholden to the leadership of their party for advancement and are therefore more able to act independently within select committees. 

The establishment of an elected backbench business committee in 2010 removed the scheduling of backbench business from government control. The Wright report also recommended the establishment of a house business committee, made up of the elected members of the backbench business committee together with frontbench representatives nominated by the party leaders, which would assume responsibility for the House’s weekly agenda. This has not yet been implemented. Despite this …

 the backbench committee has given backbench MPs much more significant control over what happens within the house of commons. Several debates granted through this route have directly affected government policy, including Mark Prtichard’s motion to ban the use of wild animals in circuses, and the memorable debate on the release of the Hillsborough papers, secured by Steve Rotherham. Although many debates do not have such a profound effect, they can help bring issues strongly to media and public attention. For example, David Nuttall’s motion calling for a referendum on EU membership led to one of the biggest Conservative Party rebellions in the post-war era.

Parliamentary privilege allows any member of Parliament, either from the Commons and the Lords, to speak freely whilst exercising their role within Parliament. This means that…

they cannot be sued for slander or libel and cannot be prosecuted for contempt of court breaching the Official Secrets Act. 

Before the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the rights of Members of Parliament to exercise their role without fear of prosecution by the Crown were not clear. There were a number of famous occasions whereby the Crown tried to intimidate MPs. By far the most famous example was when …

Charles I entered the house of commons to arrest 5 members of parliament on 4th January 1642. When the Glorious Revolution occurred Britain essentially became a constitutional monarchy. In 1689 the Bill of Rights received Royal Assent. The Bill of rights solidified the fact that Britain now had a constitutional monarchy. One of the clauses of the bill stated that: “ That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament”. This saw the birth of modern Parliamentary Privilege.

Parliamentary privilege is checked by the committee on privileges. This is headed by Labour MP Kevin Barron and can suspend a member for abusing their rights to parliamentary privilege.  For example …

The Zircon affair began when in 1985 BBC Scotland produced a television documentary series called secret society. As part of this the programme was going to reveal details about a spy satellite that the Government had not disclosed to the Public Account Committee, which was meant to be able to have financial oversight over the Government. GCHQ, one of Britain’s spy agencies tried to stop the BCC from airing the programme, when they refused, special branch raided the offices of BBC scotland. With the help of MPs, the producer of the programme arranged for a showing in the House of Commons. Despite this being a breach of the Official Secrets Act, the MPs who watched it were exercising Parliamentary Privilege in doing so. This was a catalyst for the issue becoming public knowledge and it was extremely embarrassing to the Government.

In 2011 a Premier League footballer was reported to be having an affair by major news outlets. However, the footballer in question had taken out an injunction at the High Court. This meant that no-one, including the newspapers, were able to reveal their identity of the footballer in question. The problem with injunctions in modern society is that social media allows information to be shared  to millions of people at the touch of a button -in essence making them unfeasible. Everyone on social media knew the identity of the footballer in question, however …

 ridiculously, it could not be published in the newspapers. The Liberal Democrat MP, John Hemming, recognised the nonsensical nature of this situation and used his right of Parliamentary privilege to highlight that the footballer in question was in fact Manchester United play Ryan Giggs. Although he had breached an injunction, Hemming could not be punished because of Parliamentary privilege. Although he was reprimanded by the speaker, Hemming had effectively made his point.

Parliamentary privilege helps to underpin the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Without parliamentary privilege, MPs would not be able to fully represent their constituents’ interests and MPs would not be able to …

scrutinise the government without fear of falling foul of legislation, such as the official secrets act. As such, it is an essential element of a modern democracy.

Scrutiny of the executive is one of the key roles of the legislature. However, Britain is a parliamentary democracy rather than a presidential system. This means that the government is formed from the legislature. It is not separate from it. The fusion of powers (rather than the separation of powers that exists for example in the USA) means that …

the legislature is almost always dominated by the Executive. This can lead to problems with holding the executive to account for its actions. 

PMQs on Wednesday afternoon is one of the only times that the chamber of the house is packed full by MPs in an ordinary week. Except for special ministerial statements or important divisions, it is also the only time that Parliament is shown live on television (except BBC parliament). This itself gives an …

indication of the importance of PMQs. The key part of Prime Minister's Questions is the verbal battle between the PM and the leader of the opposition. It is clear that some members of the House of Commons are better suited to this battle than others. In recent years some of the best common performers include Tony Blair, David Cameron and William Hague.

Despite being weekly, it is rare to see a moment in OMQs which captures the imagination of the wider public. It normally happens when either one side completely dominates the other, someone is embarrassed or someone makes a major mistake.  Famous examples of scandals include …

in 2007 Gordon Brown had taken over from Tony Blair as PM. at the time (prior to the fixed term parliaments act) PMs could call a snap election whenever they wanted. With Labour ahead in the polls it was widely expected that he would call an election, but didn’t. Cameron jumped on this opportunity to portray the PM as weak and indecisive. Also, Tony Blair became labour leader in 1994 and was up against a conservative prime minister who was struggling to keep his won party onside - particularly over the issue of the European Union. Tony Blair was able to characterise John Major as weak in this classic moment from 1997, just a few months before the election.

Other famous scandals from PMQs include ‘Stalin v Mr Bean’ where in 2007  the Lib Dem leader Vince Cable produced a characterisation of Gordon Brown that had the house of commons roaring with laughter. Similarly, following …

Boris Johnson’s apology for attending a potentially unlawful gathering in Downing Street during COVID-19, Keir Starmer utterly dominated Boris Johnson during PMQs.

One of the important aspects of PMQs is that any backbench can potentially ask the PM a question. They can apply via a ballot to ensure they are able to ask a question or can try to ‘catch the speaker’s eye’ by bobbing up and down. Asking a question of the PM is a big deal for backbenchers as it sends a strong signal to their constituents that they are standing up for their interests in parliament. Often backbench questions are orchestrated by the party whips. On the PMs side, they are …

 engineered to give the PM questions that they can answer easily or questions that reinforce a key message. For example, during the 5 years of coalition government backbenhc questions often referred to the government’s long term economic plan. Indeed, between 2010 and 2015 elections the term was used 1349 times in the house of commons. Meanwhile, backbench opposition questions are often planned to complement the line of attack taken by the leader of the opposition. One of the key criticisms of PMQs is that it is ‘Punch and Judy politics’ where MPs try to score political points on each other rather than focusing on scrutinising or explaining government. 

A key role of parliament is to provide security of the executive. PMQs allows the PM to be held directly accountable to MPs. There are no limits on what can be asked at PMQs and the PM has to be able to account for their government’s policy over a broad image of issues. The PM has to account not just for national policy, but for how it might be affecting people's lives on a constituency level. Also, the PM has to be able to ….

account for all of their policies and the actions of their government. To do this they rely on government ministers to keep them fully briefed on what is happening within the government. Ministers and civil servants  need to be conscious that any of their decisions might be questioned in the public forum of PMQs. As such, it is an important mechanism for allowing the PM to have not just the ability but the reason to involve themselves in as much of the government as possible.

PMQs prevents the government from becoming complacent. They cannot rely on their current policies and must look to progress. If they don’t, they will be consistently shown up in PMQs by the opposition. PMQs is a chance to show that you have the support of your party. The strength of the cheering for you and the heckling of your opponent is a clear indication of the morale of the party. After PMQs, MPs will be challenged by ‘The Lobby’ (the term for Parliaments journalists) and their strength which they support their leader will be taken as a clear indicator of how much support they have. Moreover …

PMQs each week is essentially an audition for the job of PM. The current PM is auditioning to keep their job, while the Leader is aiming to show the PM is not up to the task and that they would be better suited to it. This is particularly important for the leader of the opposition. The PM has plenty of opportunities to play the part of spokesman and advertise themselves to the electorate. The leader of the opposition does not have the same platform, making strong performances at PMQs an important driver in people's perceptions of their ability.

On each sitting day apart from Fridays a government department answers questions in the house of commons. MPs can table questions in advance and ask a follow-up question. In addition …

MPs can ask an unlimited number of written questions to ministers. These questions and the response are published by Hansard and are now available on the internet. Some of the strengths of daily question time are:

The existence of question time each day ensures that the government is kept up to date with the workings of their department

• In normal question time MPs can ask a question in advance and then a supplementary question. This allows them to establish a line of questioning. 

• MPs can also table a question for a written response which may extract more detail from the department in question.

Any opposition or Backbench MP can request that the speaker grant an Urgent question. If the request is granted, the speaker can require a responsible minister to attend the house of commons to answer questions from members of par;iament. The decisions as to whether to grant an urgent question is entirely at the discretion of the speaker of the house of commons, although …

 they may take advice on the issue from the commons clerks. If an urgent question is granted, the speaker can require a member of government to answer questions immediately in the house of commons. Not only will the minister have to answer questions from the proposer of the urgent question, they will also have to field supplementary questions from other interested MPs. In recent years the amount of urgent questions granted has grown significantly. 

During the 2007-08 parliamentary session under Speaker Martin just four urgent questions were asked, equivalent to just 0.02 per sitting day. In contrast, under Speaker Bercow, MPs asked …

307 urgent questions during the 2017-19 session, almost 0.88 per sitting day. In this time ministers spent a total of 196 hours fielding urgent questions. Lindsay Hoyle has kept up this impressive record after taking over as speaker and has granted 0.6 urgent questions per day.

The increase is likely for two reasons:

• Much of the credit belongs to the speakers. Whilst previous speakers may have found themselves in the thrall of the government, if there is any doubt over an issue he would always prioritise the rights of backbenchers and the rights of parliament to have further debate on an issue

• Recent years have seen a significant polarisation in the make-up of the house of commons. It has also seen a rise in diverse issues of enormous national importance, with Brexit the most notable example. The sheer scope of the Brexit impact over UK politics and the great many issues with passing the Withdrawal act meaning that Brexit itself helped to dramatically increase the number of urgent questions for consideration. 

In April 2023, Labour MP Clive Betts tabled an urgent question over the issue of voters not having Photo ID ahead of the upcoming election. The requirement for photo ID had come as a result of…

the controversial Elections Act 2022. In the same month, Liberal Democrat MP Wendy Chamberlain asked the government to give a statement regarding the seeing failure of the PM to meet his pledges on transparency regarding ministerial interest and conflicts of interest. 

• Urgent questions are mechanisms to try to ensure that ministers make important public statements to the house of commons first and not directly to the media. For example, in May 2020, the chancellor Rishi Sunak planned to make his announcement extending the COVID-19 furlough scheme to the media. However, after the granting of an urgent question to Annelise Dodds (shadow chancellor) he was instead forced to do it in the commons. 

• Urgent questions ensure that a government minister can always be held directly accountable if an urgent issue arises. This increases parliament's ability to carry out its fundamental role of executive scrutiny.

• Urgent questions make sure that parliament has some control over the political agenda. Without urgent questions ministers may be able to void direct scrutiny over an issue until the next departmental question time or prime minister questions session. The provision of urgent questions ensures that the government cannot escape parliamentary scrutiny over controversial issues. 

Urgent questions are also limited. They are entirely at the discretion of the speaker. The speaker is unlikely to grant an urgent question if there is another reasonable way that the issue could be raised. Furthermore …

the speaker cannot force a particular minister to respond, only that a government minister responds. Often, a more junior minister will be sent if there is an issue that might be damaging to the government. For example, in the urgent questions relating to ‘partygate’ it was Michael Ellis who answered on behalf of the government, not the PM. Like PMQs, ministers can often get away with a political response that doesn’t fully answer the question that is asked. 

Just like under urgent questions an MP can apply for an emergency debate under standing order 24 and is often called a ‘standing order 24’ debate. Under this mechanism the speaker can allow an MP to apply for an emergency debate. To do this, an MP will make a three-minute speech to the speaker after which the speaker will decide whether or not to submit the application to the house. If he does, …

MPs will vote on whether a debate should take place. This means that often emergency debates are on issues of cross-party support, unlike UQs. The debate that takes place will usually be three hours. However, under exceptional circumstances the speaker may relax this timeframe. There has also been a growth in the amount of emergency debates per sitting day from 0 in 2005-10 to 0.06 in 2017-19. 

Such emergency debates are not binding on the government, meaning they cannot be forced to act upon them. In addition, they are traditionally not amendable, meaning that only the original motion can be discussed and voted on.  Examples of emergency debates include:

• In January 2023 a debate took place on the decision of the government to issue a section 35 notice under the scotland act 1998. This was the first time the notice had ever been issued and was done in response to the passing of the Gender Recognition ACt by the Scottish Parliament. 

• An emergency debate took place over the Owen Paterson personal lobbying scandal. This debate was requested by the liberal democrats in 2021.

• In June 2021 an emergency debate took place over the amount that Britain was giving in international aid which had dropped below 0.7% GDP. This debate was requested by Conservative backbencher Andrew Mitchell. 

One of the most controversial moments of John Bercow's speakership came when he allowed an emergency debate to be amended so that it was a ‘substantive motion’ - meaning something that could be binding on the government. This was a break from convention and ultimately allowed MPs to take over the parliamentary order paper. They used this control to …

pass the Benn Act that would prevent Parliament from leaving the EU with No- Deal. Emergency questions are less significant than Urgent questions as they must be agreed by the house before being debated. However ,their growth still allows more scrutiny that existed before they became prominent. It does mean that if a majority of MPs wanted something debated they can force that to happen. Unlike the motion that John Bercow controversially allowed in September 2019, such debates are not binding. 

Select committees were established in 1979 and have become an important mechanism of parliamentary scrutiny in the UK. there are two types of select committees: Departmental and Non-Departmental select committees. Select committees have grown in power since the Wright Reforms of 2009 which changed …

 the way members and chairs of select committees were elected:

• Chairs of select committees should be elected by secret ballot of the whole house

• Members of select committees should be elected within party groups by secret ballot.

These changes have helped to make select committees more independent minded and reduce the power of whips over them. Select committees are made up of 11 backbench MPs. the composition is in proportion to the party balance in the commons. 

Strengths of Select Committees include that they can investigate  issues in much more depth than possible in the chamber of the house of commons. They produce detailed reports for consideration by the government, they work across party lines and often in a bipartisan manner. This gives select committees more legitimacy than the partisan politics that normally take place in the chamber. They also …

are increasingly becoming involved in pre-legislative scrutiny to help develop bills before they get to the house of commons. For example, the digital, culture, media and sport select committee have published a detailed report on the government's draft online safety bill. In this, for example, they recommended the creation of a specific offence of cyberflashing. The government responded by confirming the provision.

Select Committees can get input from beyond politics to help inform them and allow MPs to move from being generalists to being specialists through their work on a committee. For example, Mike Ashley on the business select committee and Yvette Cooper who was chair of the home affairs select committee as home secretary. Since the Wright reforms of 2010 …

select committees are now independent due to the way they are selected. Moreover, the commons liaison committee is headed by the chairs of other select committees and questions the OM directly up to 3 times a year. These sessions are much more intense for the PM than other question times and can lead to more detailed scrutiny.