Interruption and filibuster: tools of parliamentary scrutiny and representation

Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) and Private Members' Bills (PMBs) in the House of Commons fulfil some of the most important functions of Parliament. PMQs are used to hold the Prime Minister publicly accountable for the actions of the Government. Private Members' Bills, on the other hand, allow backbench MPs to introduce their own legislation. However, these two parliamentary procedures have long been the subject of fierce criticism, calling into question their effectiveness and relevance. According to critics, the large number of interruptions of all kinds during PMQs makes the exercise counterproductive. As far as PMBs are concerned, the delaying tactics used to 'kill' the bill presented to the House, known as 'filibustering', render this legislative procedure a purely symbolic procedure. However, this article aims to show that these forms of obstruction, interruptions and filibusters, do exactly what PMQs and PMBs are designed to do, thus fulfilling the main functions of Parliament. Moreover, they help to fulfil another important role of Parliament, that of political representation. Interruptions and filibusters act as a signal to other MPs and to the public in order to draw their attention to elements they consider questionable. They also serve to hold the Government to account for its action, while encouraging it to put certain issues on the political agenda. Finally, the use of interruptions and filibusters sheds light on the representative role of MPs, who make themselves the voice of the people by bending the rules of the House of Commons.