General Committees in the House of Commons typically conduct line-by-line legislative analysis. While temporary Delegated Legislation Committees (DLC) examine Statutory Instruments (SIs) that need parliamentary approval, Public Bill Committees (PBC) are constituted to analyze bills. Since the composition of these committees is chosen to represent the party groups in the House of Commons, the government holds a majority in them.
The responsible minister, the shadow minister, and those chosen by party whips make up PBCs. General Committees in the House of Commons typically conduct line-by-line legislative analysis. While temporary Delegated Legislation Committees (DLC) examine Statutory Instruments (SIs) that need parliamentary approval, Public Bill Committees (PBC) are constituted to analyze bills. Since the composition of these committees is chosen to represent the party groups in the House of Commons, the government holds a majority in them. The responsible minister, the shadow minister, and those chosen by party whips make up PBCs.
Introduction to backbench committees
For those who are interested, the introduction to the first report of the House of Commons’ Committee on Reform (sometimes referred to as the “Wright Committee” after its chair, Dr. Tony Wright) provides background information on how the committee was formed. The “scheduling of business by the House” was one of the issues the House directed it to look into when it was established on July 20, 2009.
To increase transparency in the process of determining the House’s overall agenda, it suggested establishing a new “House Business Committee,” a new category of “backbench business” to be overseen by a new committee of backbenchers, and a system whereby the House as a whole would have the last say on its agenda.
On June 15, 2010, a new standing order was adopted, creating the British House of Commons’ Backbench Business Committee. It was established shortly after the general election in 2010; however, the Wright Committee on Reform of the House of Commons had suggested it in its report from November 12, 2009, during the previous Parliament. On behalf of backbench members, those who are not shadow ministers or ministers of the crown, the committee is in charge of choosing the House’s agenda for around one day per week.
This includes the half-day sessions held on Thursdays in Westminster Hall, the counterpart debate chamber. Standing Order 14 modifications grant the committee 35 days per session, with at least 27 of those days spent on the House floor (rather than Westminster Hall). The committee also decides on the one-and-a-half-hour Topical Debates, which are counted as quarter days.
Role and importance of backbench committees
The committee is composed of a chair and seven additional members who are elected at the start of each session in accordance with Standing Order 152. The alternative vote procedure is used to elect the chair, who must be an opposition member, much like other chairmen of select committees. With the requirement that the eight members (including the chair) represent a distribution of seats decided by the Speaker, which is to reflect the party composition of the House of Commons, the remaining members are chosen using the single transferable vote system. Additionally, two women and at least two males must be elected.
How do backbench committees shape legislation?
Perhaps the discussion surrounding a prospective EU vote served as a warning to the party’s business management about the risks associated with the beast they had let loose. To maintain both gender and party balance, the initial standing order for BBCom stipulated that its members (as well as the Chair) would be chosen by a secret ballot of the entire House. It is also utilizing a sophisticated Single Transferable Vote method.
At the time of the first election, the government whips appeared to be sleeping at the wheel. All Conservative members were elected without opposition, which led to a significant bias in the party’s membership toward the Eurosceptic wing.
However, the membership (and chair) had to be reappointed every session, unlike other select committees. Before that, on March 12, 2012, the government moved the House to replace whole-house elections with internal party elections, which significantly reduced the sense of collective ownership of the committee among all backbenchers, regardless of party. Natascha Engel was re-elected in each of the subsequent sessions of the 2010–15 parliament as a small price for changing the standing order to mandate that the chair be from an opposition party
Mechanisms of Influence in Policy Making
Enhancing the influence of backbench MPs in the policy-making process is a key function of the UK Parliament’s Backbench Business Committee (BBBC). It was created in 2010 to give backbenchers additional authority over parliamentary business in response to the Wright Committee’s recommendations.
The chair of the BBBC is chosen via an alternative voting procedure and is a member of the opposition. The other seven members are chosen at the start of each legislative session. At least two males and two women must be included in the membership, which represents the party makeup of the House of Commons.
Case studies of backbench committee impact
The influence of the UK Parliament’s backbench committees and the Backbench Business Committee (BBBC) on policymaking is demonstrated by several noteworthy case studies:
- The controversy surrounding the release of records about the Hillsborough tragedy in 1989 is one well-known example. In 2011, the BBC Radio 6 Music Radio show also arranged a debate in the House of Parliament after over 100,000 people signed an e-petition. Backbenchers took advantage of time on the BBC to hold the government to task and to instigate meaningful policy and legal proceedings, such as that which prompted the government to release hitherto secret records, and which led to further inquests and official inquiries.
- Another interesting case in point is the 2011 debate on whether the UK should be a member of the EU, in which 81 Conservative MPs defied the party whip and voted in favor of a referendum on EU membership.
- The fields of mental health, banking reform, voting rights for inmates, and consumer protection from loan sharks all exhibit further backbench influence. Through the BBBC’s agenda-setting authority, these subjects, which frontbench leadership frequently ignores or marginalizes, attracted legislative attention and discussion time, underscoring the committee’s function in expanding the policy emphasis in Parliament.
- Select committees led and comprised of backbench MPs have also made influential interventions.
Interaction with the government and ministers
The relationship between the Backbench Business Committee (BBBC) and the government and ministers in the UK Parliament is fragile, with limited influence and cooperation. The reforms identified in the Wright Committee saw the formation of the BBBC in 2010 to provide backbench MPs with greater control over the business of parliament, particularly regarding the facilitation of the discussion of issues that are of interest to them. Although this authority is delegated, the committee often operates within constraints imposed by government business managers, and the agenda is still slightly dependent on government timetables.
As seen by the coalition government’s inclusion of the BBBC in its Programme for Government and the committee’s seamless formation, the government formally supports the committee’s existence. As the committee is at the periphery of the entire parliamentary schedule, it customarily has Thursday afternoons free to undertake backbench business, often considered a less significant time slot.
Although the BBBC promotes discussions on various matters, such as popular petitions and some suggestions made by specific committees, the government still reserves much authority regarding the debate of the different motions and at what time. Moreover, to make sure that they have their interests represented in Parliament, backbenchers may usually need to be in contact with the government and frontbench leadership.
Difficulties encountered by backbench committees
Among the key hindrances, there is the absence of control over the parliamentary plan. Although the Backbench Business Committee (BBBC) only has one day a week to transact backbench business, the slot, typically on a Thursday afternoon, has been referred to as a graveyard slot, making it less important and prominent. There is no votable agenda in the committee, which means that it cannot determine or predetermine what must be discussed without the government business managers, since they are in charge of the schedule in the end anyway. The committee’s capacity to regularly give backbench issues priority is hampered by this dependence.
The government still firmly controls parliamentary procedures, even though the BBC plans to grant some agenda-setting rights to backbenchers. During periods of political crisis or tight government majorities, backbench committees are less influential on vital issues and are subject to constraints imposed by business managers and government whips.
Backbench committees and public participation
Backbench committees in the UK Parliament actively engage in public life by considering any issues brought by e-petitions, public campaigns, and issues in a constituency. The major way the Backbench Business Committee (BBBC) encourages people to participate is through scheduling talks based on e-petitions that receive over 100,000 signatures on the government petition site. By so doing, the distance between citizens and their representatives can be bridged, and issues of national interest can be openly debated in Parliament.
As part of its close association with public interests, the BBBC also takes into account matters that arise in local and national campaigns, in select committee reports, and requests by individual Members of Parliament.
In some discussions, the audience is invited to directly participate in the policy debate by providing their experiences and voices in the discussion.
Backbench committees enhance democratic participation by providing a voice to the people in Parliament, a voice that influences policy debate on a range of issues, in particular, with well-considered approaches to engagement, including e-petitions, public action, and lobbying at the constituency level.
