POLITICAL COMMENTARY
Hugh Macpherson
'I do not really think the House of Commons is my cup of tea," confided the dreadful old buffer Chips Channon to his diary when he became a member in 1934: "Enough if I remain a mute, just adequate backbencher;" and a few days later when the place began to grow on him: "Today I really liked it; boredom passed and a glow of pleasure filtered through me. But I wish I sometimes understood what I was voting for." Now the single redeeming feature of Channon which comes through his diary is a striking honesty, and although he was without doubt a singularly vapid example of the Conservative backbencher of those days, his naive view of the role of the ordinary MP as an acquiescent rubber stamp is one that has grown.
Today members who always vote at their party's call and never bother thinking for themselves at all are more evenly distributed between the parties. Some sectors of the Labour party, principally in trade union strongholds, have achieved the remarkable feat of progressing straight from political adolescence to senility with no mature period between. There was, for example, a Labour whip who was sternly instructed by Mr Harold Wilson not to set his foot on disputed territory on a visit to Israel during the last government's term. Finding himself in a bus with some of his colleagues in just such a location he proudly announced that he was a man of his word and remained in the bus to gaze at the forbidden territory through the window.
The backbencher is now often regarded as being absolutely powerless by those with some political knowledge. Paradoxically enough, to those with little knowledge of politics, an MP can often make a splendid noise about what he will do in Parliament which gives a completely false view of his powers. Only the other week an MP in 'the Home Counties informed his constituents that he was giving the Minister until after Christmas — and then if there was no action he would put down a question, no less, to him. This sounds very impressive but is hardly likely to induce insomnia in any reasonably competent minister. Other MPs announce that they are putting down a motion on the Order Paper — which of course is their perfect entitlement. What is not always clear is the fact that any MP can do just that, and then it is printed on the Order Paper, cheerfully forgotten, but certainly not debated. That is not always the impression created.
The hard facts are that a backbench MP's influence will depend on many factors such as personal history and ability but the parliamentary avenues open to him to oppose executive decisions or scrutinise its work are quite varied. It is worth while listing some of the main parliamentary opportunities available to any backbencher, apart from his normal contribution to debates in the House or in Committee.
First there is the question to a minister, which may be written or oral. The really able backbencher can build a formidable dossier on any subject by putting down questions for written answer. He can then use them with a brief prepared by the House of Commons library, to feed his local paper which usually will be delighted to take it. If it is of wider interest he might gain national publicity.
Next he can write to the Speaker and ask for an adjournment. This gives him half an hour at the close of the day's business to raise any subject he thinks important. Each week the Speaker chooses two of the subjects which he thinks should have precedence and the other three are drawn from a hat. This method of raising a matter of local importance usually results in valuable publicity for a particular cause. It also leads to some sharp action in the Ministry, for example if some malpractice in a hospital is raised. Any member who is really on his toes can keep a subject prepared and if business seems likely to finish early — which will usually be on a Friday — he can grab his opportunity to raise the subject of his choice, having notified the 'Ministry he might do so. The indefatigable Mr William Hamilton has grabbed several opportunities this year already to embarrass Scottish ministers with a sudden debate by giving them only a few hours' notice of his intentions. Since Friday is usually a dull parliamentary day his activities were widely publicised on radio, television and in the Scottish papers. There is also the procedure by which a member can raise matters of real emergency under Standing Order No 9 and providing he can show it to be specific, of immediate urgency and within the jurisdiction of some Minister. In 1970 there were eighteen attempts at raising emergency debates and four were successful, including the subjects of the South African cricket tour and the civil war in Nigeria.
On Tuesdays and Wednesdays a member can introduce a ten minute rule Bill, which is really just a short speech with a reply from the Ministry concerned. If he is particularly lucky he may gain a high place in the annual draw for private members' Bills. It was by this method that David Steel first introduced his abortion Bill. It was also by this method that Brian Walden forced the government o set up the Younger Committee which is now considering invasion of privacy. There are also days reserved for private members' motions. A member may also write to a minister and ask tosee him — and it is rare that the minister will be unreasonable about it. The correspondence which will usually accompany such a visit is valuable ammunition for any interviews a member may give to his local paper or on television. For the alert backbencher there is plenty of room among the rococo procedures of Parliament.
The one connecting factor in almost every backbench outlet is that to be effective it must be backed up by, or be part of, a publicity campaign outside Westminster. That is the way in which the political relationship between Parliament and people has evolved, whether we like it or not.
Mr Richard Crossman was recently lamenting the fact that ,debates were no longer so spontaneous, that speeches were overprepared. But that is yearning for another more genteel age when gentlemen thrashed things out and the citizenry knew nothing about what was going on. With television coverage of politics the present generation is probably the best informed electorate in history. Backbenchers who want to be influential must learn to use the media available and much of the bewailing of the decline in the influence of the backbencher is due to the fact that some have never adapted to the age in which they now live. That is also one reason why Parliament has so far resisted TV coverage of debates. Those who do not adapt themselves to the age in which they live normally become extinct. The only thing which keeps so many backbenchers in existence is the fact that the party machines themselves are even more antiquated in their attitudes than the members they produce.
If one examines the backbenchers who have made the government move they have been men who have been able to use what they did within Parliament to their advantage outside, where the threat of unpopular publicity proved more effective than a speech of Burkian elegance in the Chamber. The men who have shown a flair for using the mounting publicity machine at national level are certainly a motley collection which would include Sir Gerald Nabarro, Mr William Hamilton and Mr Enoch Powell.
Previous page
