Steps to restrict backbench power must be resisted

• Report: Work of the Committee in the 2010-15 Parliament
• Report: Work of the Committee in the 2010-15 Parliament (PDF 392KB)
• Backbench Business Committee

The Backbench Business Committee was set up by the House of Commons in June 2010 and is now coming to the end of its first Parliament. The Committee has offered, for the first time, the opportunity for backbenchers to bring forward applications for debates on topics of their choice to a committee of their fellow backbenchers, rather than be restricted to subjects dictated by party whips. Backbench MPs have introduced debates on a range of issues including on mental health, cycling, Syria, Hillsborough, and on compensation for people given contaminated blood.

Natascha Engel, Chair of the Backbench Business Committee since June 2010, said:

"Backbenchers have grabbed the opportunity presented by the Backbench Business Committee to bring forward a variety of topical and important debates. While the scheduling of some debates will not have been met with delight by Government or Opposition front-benches, the result has been more interesting and lively debates where backbench MPs have been better able to hold Government to account. Any move to reduce the number of days for backbench debates or to remove the opportunity for MPs to vote on backbench motions would be a retrograde step."

Key changes in government 

Backbench debates have led to a number of key changes in government policy over the course of the current Parliament. Academic research points to backbench business debates altering government policy on a number of issues, including government funding of the BBC World Service, the release of documents to the Hillsborough Disaster, and the freezing of fuel duty. Debates on prisoners’ voting rights, arms to Syria, and on the future of town-centres can also be said to have influenced Government policy.

While backbench debates may have influenced Government policy, backbench motions have not been binding on the Government. Indeed, many MPs as well as the public have expressed frustration and anger at backbench motions being debated and voted on only for nothing further to happen. For example, when on 25 October 2012 MPs voted overwhelmingly (147 votes to 28) to suspend the badger cull, many people could not understand why this decision of the House of Commons was not then implemented.

However, the Committee finds that if backbench motions were binding on Government, the result would be that backbench debates would be heavily whipped and each motion defeated. Currently, backbench motions provide an opportunity for backbenchers to raise their concerns and force a Minister to respond. If the votes were binding on Government, MPs would lose the freedom to explore issues and speak freely. 

Chair's comments

Natascha Engel, Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, said:

"The Government risks damaging the reputation of the House of Commons and the executive if it simply ignores backbench debates. Public expectations of action will be raised only to be dashed, leaving people disillusioned rather than engaged by the political process. The Government can remedy this by promising to make a written Ministerial statement rather than ignoring the vote on a backbench motion. This could mark the beginning of a series of consultations or meetings with MPs and others on how to carry forward the subject of the debate."

The Committee recommends that the House of Commons Committee system, particularly the departmental select committees, play a role in monitoring the Government’s response to debates in their subject area. If a Minister makes a commitment from the despatch box, the relevant committee could follow it up during the course of their inquiries and regular sessions with Ministers. If no action follows, the original sponsoring Member or the appropriate select committee could pursue the matter by tabling another backbench motion.

The Committee believes the current system for bringing e-petitions to the attention of Parliament is flawed, welcomes the creation of a new Petitions Committee in the next Parliament, and recommends that the new Petitions Committee have a public engagement function to enable petitioners to engage fully with the political process.

Further information

• About Parliament: Select Committees
• Visiting Parliament: Watch committees