The salon to be seen in

Natascha Engel had concerns from the start about the backbench business committee. But as its chairman she believes its innovative approach to the allocation of parliamentary time is paying off for backbenchers.

The backbench business committee was born straight after the last election. Even in its infancy, it is unlike anything that has ever existed before – in our Parliament or any other.

Many people saw a backbench business committee as an essential step towards ‘wresting control’ away from an over-powerful Executive. Others, myself included, had their doubts that a backbench business committee would be the answer.

I was on Tony Wright’s committee which put forward proposals for this committee. My concern at the time was that a backbench business committee would at best transfer power from one elite (the whips) to a different and equally inaccessible elite of senior backbenchers. At worst, I thought it would merely add another group of people to the deals made between the whips’ offices in the usual channels. On both counts, I’m delighted to say, I was wrong.

In order to guard against becoming another elite, our solution was to hold public weekly sessions in which backbenchers would pitch their ideas to us face-to-face, to be seen in telling us why they believe their topic should be chosen above any others.

It is these sessions which Sir George Young, the leader of the House and another former member of the Wright committee, dubbed ‘The Salon’. Our first representees were Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, who made a bid for time to debate immigration. John Redwood, Jeremy Lefroy and Brian Binley successfully pitched for a debate on ‘policies for growth’, whilst Nicky Morgan, Duncan Hames, Paul Flynn and Grahame Morris will see their subjects debated in Westminster Hall.

Fiona Mactaggart was given time to debate human trafficking to coincide with Anti-Slavery Day, Robert Halfon had a Westminster Hall debate on privacy and the internet, whilst Bob Russell and Kate Green debated the effects of the comprehensive spending review on the Department for Work and Pensions. Others, such as Michael Meacher, Steve Baker, Adam Afriyie, Steve Rotheram, Julian Lewis, Gordon Banks, Chris Williamson and Nic Dakin have also been to see us with their bids for time.

Each proposal will continue to be considered when, after each public meeting, we go into private session to deliberate. We publish our reasons for choosing any particular application for a given slot.

This is very different from the lottery of a private member’s bill ballot, or even applying for an adjournment debate. It is a world removed from government deciding what backbenchers should discuss. Topical and general debates on a Thursday afternoon used to have so few Members taking part that they would usually collapse. Most people took the opportunity to go back to their constituencies a day early.

In contrast, the first debate that our committee scheduled after representations made to us by Owen Smith and Geoffrey Robinson was on contaminated blood.

Not only were there limits on speaking time, but the public galleries were packed with victims, their families and campaign groups. This debate reached far wider than the chamber. That, to us, was a sign of real success. But we are just starting out. No doubt we will make mistakes and strike wrong notes. That will be the price we pay for taking risks.

The key to success will be backbenchers themselves. By using and shaping us, they will ensure that we keep hold of, and develop, this powerful new platform from which to be heard.

Have your say...

Please enter your comments below.

Name

Your e-mail address

Listen to audio version

Please type in the letters or numbers shown above (case sensitive)