Evaluate the role and significance of backbenchers in both Houses of Parliament.

Point A – Backbenchers are central to parliamentary scrutiny of the executive.

Most mechanisms of scrutiny are carried out by backbench MPs rather than ministers, because ministers are part of the executive and cannot scrutinise themselves.

Evidence:

• Departmental select committees are made up of backbench MPs

• They scrutinise government departments through inquiries, reports and evidence sessions

Counterpoint A – The influence of backbenchers is limited by executive dominance.

Strong party discipline and the use of whips often limit the independence of backbench MPs.

Evidence:

• Governments with large majorities under first-past-the-post can dominate Parliament

• This weakens the independence of backbench MPs

Point B – Backbenchers play a key role through select committees which provide detailed scrutiny.

Departmental select committees allow MPs to investigate government policy and question ministers.

Evidence:

• Brexit Select Committee questioning of David Davis (2017)

• Concerns about whether Parliament would get a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal

Counterpoint B – Select committee scrutiny is limited because their recommendations are not binding.

The government can ignore committee findings.

Evidence:

• Select committees produce reports and recommendations, but the government is not required to implement them

Point C – Backbenchers can influence legislation during the legislative process.

Public Bill Committees allow backbench MPs to examine legislation line-by-line and propose amendments.

Evidence:

• Public Bill Committees take evidence from experts

• They recommend amendments to legislation

Counterpoint C – Government majorities often limit the impact of backbenchers in Public Bill Committees.

Committee membership reflects the party balance in the House of Commons, meaning the government normally has a majority.

Evidence:

• MPs on committees can be whipped, limiting independent scrutiny