Events | 2010.03.05
Backbench reformers win big role
Changes seen as answer to collapse of public trust as MPs reject Cameron deal backed by government
A long campaign to wrest control of the parliamentary agenda from government triumphed today when MPs voted overwhelmingly to establish an elected backbench committee to take responsibility for tracts of Commons business.
The reforms, passed in the dying days of a discredited parliament, represent the most radical erosion of the authority of party whips for many years.
The changes are being seen by reformist MPs as a way of responding to the collapse of trust in the wake of the expenses scandal.
Against the advice of the two front benches, MPs on a free vote ensured the backbench committee must be established as soon as the new parliament starts. A standing order is now expected to be tabled, making the change effectively binding on the next parliament.
The Commons leader, Harriet Harman, supported an amendment by David Cameron limiting the new backbench committee to setting the timetable initially to just 15 days of business a session. But MPs voted by 221 to 106 for the committee to have wider control over non-ministerial parliamentary business straight away.
Labour whips vainly struggled to prevent some ministers, including the schools secretary, Ed Balls, voting for reform, but overall the reformers were surprised how little the whips organised.
MPs also voted that in the new parliament all departmental select committee chairs must be elected by secret ballot, and select committee members elected by internal party elections. The chair of the procedure committee will also be elected. Chairmen of committees will be called chairs.
MPs also voted that the Speaker be given powers to suggest a committee member should be discharged if they fail to attend more than 60% of formal meetings.
The front benches will also be required to undertake the process of electing committee chairs within two weeks of the Queen\'s speech.
In another vital reform, MPs voted that the tabling of government business will at some point in the next parliament be agreed by a joint committee consisting of party front benches, and the elected backbench committee.
The reforms are a personal victory for Tony Wright, the Labour backbencher and chairman of the committee set up by Gordon Brown to consider the reforms.
He said: "The time has come when the house should reclaim responsibility for itself and its own business. That is what unifies our proposals about select committees. It cannot be right ... for the executive or for the party managers, either directly or indirectly, to control who goes on to select committees. It cannot be acceptable any longer for the executive to control business that should properly belong to the house."
Wright had to fight hard in recent months to prevent opponents deferring key decisions on the changes until the next parliament by which time he and other key advocates such as Chris Mullin, David Howarth and Martin Salter will have stood down.
Harman, backed by the justice secretary, Jack Straw, fought hard behind the scenes to guide as many reforms through as possible. Although there have been suspicions that Harman has been delaying reforms, she can legitimately claim credit for engineering complex reforms through parliament that go further than those advocated by Robin Cook.
Both Harman, and her Tory shadow Sir George Young, argued the backbench committee should be responsible initially for scheduling only 15 days setpiece debates. Harman said Cameron\'s proposal provided greater clarity on the number of days the backbench business committee will have at its disposal and also offered a more flexible approach.
Young - also trying to handle internal divisions in his own party – warned that to give the committee responsibility for more parliamentary days straight away might reduce time set aside to vote on key government bills at report stage.
But he said overall the reforms will mean the house will never again be forced to plead for more time to debate its own business.
MPs were prevented from voting on whether there should be a secret trigger ballot to decide whether there should be a ballot on a new Speaker.
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/04/commons-reform-backbench
