Committee publication · Report · 22 July 2025 · HC 534
3rd Report - Status of independent Members of Parliament
From: Procedure Committee
Inquiry: Status of independent Members of Parliament
Government response deadline: 22 September 2025
Summary
The Procedure Committee examines the status of independent MPs following the 2024 general election, when six independent candidates were elected—the highest number in modern history. Five formed a 'technical group' seeking procedural benefits. The committee concludes that 'technical groups' have no standing in UK parliamentary procedure and should not be formally recognised without clarifying smaller parties' rights first. Independent MPs can exercise the same parliamentary rights as party members but may need enhanced support.
Key findings
- Six independent candidates were elected in 2024 (highest in modern history); five formed an 'Independent Alliance' 'technical group' seeking greater speaking rights and committee access comparable to small parties like the Greens and Reform UK.
- The concept of 'technical groups' is unknown in UK Standing Orders; extending conventions applicable to small registered parties to unregistered groups would require consideration of financial regulation, transparency obligations, and Electoral Commission registration differences.
- Independent MPs can broadly exercise the same parliamentary rights as party members (speaking time, questions, amendments, bills) but evidence from elected independents suggests they lack party machinery support and require additional training on parliamentary processes and digital tools.
- Smaller parties' procedural rights (e.g., PMQs participation, select committee seats) derive from convention rather than Standing Order and apply only to registered parties with legal and financial accountability; technical groups have no legal status or equivalent obligations.
- Extending procedural rights to technical groups would 'fragment' time currently allocated to smaller parties; parties themselves expressed concern that privileges based on 'lack of unified purpose' would be counterproductive to the House's interest in representing the full range of public views.
Recommendations
- Review induction and training offer for new Members elected as independents prior to the next General Election, ensuring sessions and resources meet their particular needs and address challenges such as understanding legislation processes and digital tools (MemberHub).
- Trial changes to the parliamentary website to add clear information describing the use of 'independent' category and make party affiliation history of each Member more prominent and easier to view, to reduce confusion between independently elected MPs and those who have lost party whip.
- No formal recognition should be afforded to 'technical groups' at this time; the House should be given opportunity to express its view on formalising the rights of smaller parties before considering technical groups, and may wish to consider what should happen if a large number of independent MPs express a desire to collaborate as a technical group upon election.
Tone
ProceduralTopics
Key actors
Cat Smith, Shockat Adam MP, Iqbal Mohamed MP, Ian Byrne MP, John McDonnell MP, Wendy Chamberlain MP, Hansard Society, Electoral Commission
Notable line
“… the concept of a 'technical group' is unknown in our parliamentary democracy and has no status within the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.”
Key Quotes
“… to amplify and multiply the opportunities and the voice that each of us has in the House and in other forums that we can participate in in Parliament.”
“Where no such unity of purpose exists, privileging voices by dint of their lack 40 of unified purpose appears actively perverse.”
“Each Member of Parliament undertakes vital work in carrying out the core duties of the House of Commons. They are legislators; examining, considering and proposing the approval of new laws, or changes to existing law.”
“"[t]he Standing Orders and customs of the House of Commons give surprisingly little formal recognition to 'political parties', instead emphasising the formal equality of individual Members of Parliament".”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗