Before the Committee was established, backbench MPs had no strong mechanisms for gaining debates in the main chamber, relying on adjournment debates which were often poorly attended, or Estimates days. As its first Chair, Natascha Engel said that she was ‘determined to make [the Committee’s] new powers count’, with the Committee’s inaugural members describing it as an important opportunity ‘for self-expression by backbenchers’. There is strong evidence to support this view. One official we spoke with described the Committee as ‘transformative’ for backbenchers, increasing the accessibility of chamber debates to MPs for the first time. We can see the very positive results of this transformation in three areas.

Firstly, the Committee has been well used by MPs. BBCom publishes no application statistics, nor does it publish records of the decisions it makes. However, the transcripts of the oral representations made by MPs and the resulting discussions with Committee members are published online regularly. These transcripts show that in the 2019 Parliament alone over 400 oral representations were made to the Committee by MPs, who between them requested 334 debates. These requests are relatively evenly split between Government and opposition MPs (98 Government and 93 opposition MPs appeared before the Committee 2019-2024).

Secondly, it enables MPs to be proactive in raising issues on which there is cross-party interest (and often consensus) and which are impacting constituencies across the UK. Marion Fellows’ Westminster Hall debates on the Post Office, and Diana Johnson’s debates on the infected blood inquiry compensation framework are excellent examples of this. More recently, Dave Robertson requested a debate on the Royal Mail, telling the Committee that ‘hundreds of my constituents have written to me about this, and I know that many other Back Benchers are in a similar position’.

MPs applying to the Committee are asked to submit a preference for a debate in the main chamber or in Westminster Hall on their application form and conversations between backbenchers and the Committee often revolve around the reasons for selecting one chamber over another. MPs who wish to discuss more localised issues or to raise awareness of a relatively niche issue tend to request a Westminster Hall debate. This makes sense, given that it is often a chamber where ministers and MPs have a more genuine conversation and where party politics is put to one side. The horse-shoe layout of Westminster Hall, the inability to debate voteable motions (those that will have a formal vote (a division) at the end) and the smaller, close-knit atmosphere of the room facilitates a more consensual debate (most of the time). By contrast, MPs who wish to debate more symbolic issues, such as International Women’s Day or Holocaust Memorial Day, tend to request a debate in the main chamber, where their topic will be afforded the gravitas it deserves. Debates in the main chamber are very popular, and the Committee often runs out of lots on its schedule. In November 2025 it already had 17 debates on its wait-list and only 16 slots available in the chamber until after the February 2026 recess.

Regardless of the chamber selected, the Committee works hard to maintain a party balance, regularly asking MPs to go away and find more speakers from one side of the House before their debates can be granted. Simon Opher for example, was asked to collect the names of more opposition MPs who would speak in his debate on domestic abuse and homicides while BBCom member Jess Brown-Fuller added her own name to Cat Smith’s debate on alcohol and cancer to ensure that the application got ‘over the line’ and had the support of enough opposition MPs.

Thirdly, there is evidence that debates generated by the Committee’s hearings do have a valuable impact in Parliament. While only a small number have led to explicit policy changes (and the 2011 debate on the UK’s membership of the EU which put a referendum back on the political agenda is perhaps the best example of this), backbench debates regularly help to raise awareness of issues and put pressure on government to act. Most often they are used as one part of an MP’s broader campaign, which may also use things like parliamentary questions, petitions or Private Member’s Bills. Robert Halfon’s work on hospital parking charges is one example of this. Often, these campaigns are linked to All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs). In fact, many representations made to the Committee come as a result of the MP’s role in a related APPG. See for example, the request made by the Co-Chair of the new APPG for Wheelchair Users (Daniel Francis MP) in January 2026 for a debate on an independent national review body for wheelchair provision.

In a report published at the end of the 2010 Parliament, the Backbench Business Committee acknowledged that it was still trying to navigate ‘unresolved difficulties’ around its operation and procedures. This was repeated in the Committee’s most recent 2025 report where it recognised that it was still thinking about potential reforms. In our evidence, we highlighted three areas for possible attention in this regard: improvements to the balance between different groups of backbench MPs, fuller transparency around its decision making, and ways in which it could instil a stronger culture of backbench representation.

Although the Committee has been relatively well used by MPs, most make use of it infrequently. In the 2019 Parliament for instance, 103 MPs made just one representation to the Committee. This is not a bad thing in itself; there were around 400-450 backbenchers in the House and a limited number of debating slots. However, a small number of MPs have been much more regular users. The DUP’s Jim Shannon for instance requested 44 debates during the 2019 Parliament and was as a result, responsible for 10% of all representations made to the committee. A much smaller pool of Labour backbenchers appeared before the Committee (25%), compared to Conservatives (45%) and the Committee also appeared to be under-utilised by new MPs, less than a third of whom made an appearance before the Committee.

There are signs that applications made in the 2024 Parliament may be more diverse. This is perhaps because of the huge turnover of MPs and the influx of 335 new Members for whom this is a good way to get issues on the agenda. It may also be a result of the increase in the number of small party MPs in the House. Applications to BBCom offer an opportunity for these parties to get their voice heard in contrast to the rest of the parliamentary week when Commons rules on debate participation limit their contributions on on the floor of the House. It will be interesting to see how this develops over the course of the Parliament.

When MPs do apply to the Committee and turn up to make their representations in person, it is rare that they are turned away. In fact, we found no examples of applications being rejected in the 2019 Parliament. Applicants are sometimes asked to find more speakers for their debates, but on the whole, an appearance seems to provide an almost guaranteed place in the ‘queue’ for a debate.

The Committee does not publish lists of applications made, so it is unclear if any applications are rejected before the oral representation stage. However, it would seem that the Committee does not really act as a filter or decision-maker, despite establishing some clear decision-making criteria back in 2010.

The Committee is mainly therefore a mechanism to allocate debate time for backbenchers. As valuable as this may be, it means that its value is mainly procedural. It is a process-orientated committee, rather than one that represents backbenchers.

As we recommend in our evidence, the Committee could have a bolder role in representing the needs and challenges of backbenchers more broadly within the House of Commons.

Added to this, previous chairs have told us that “drumming up business” can be a challenge, with demand for Westminster Hall debates at times being much lower than the number of slots available. This has been a particular problem towards the end of a Parliament. At the same time, applications for other backbench debates through the Speaker’s ballot (a simple ballot which places no requirement on MPs to appear before a committee to request a slot) remain high. MPs tell us that they use the Speaker’s ballot in the first instance and only go to the Backbench Business Committee if they are repeatedly unsuccessful. Some of the MPs we spoke to were not even aware that there are two potential routes to getting a backbench debate in Westminster Hall.

This raises questions around the differentiation between debates in Westminster Hall controlled by BBCom and those controlled by the Speaker’s Office, and whether BBCom could potentially handle all applications for Westminster Hall in the future. A reform like this would bring a stronger balance between supply and demand and would put the Committee in a position to be a more genuine decision maker and champion of backbench causes.

Leston-Bandeira, C. & Thompson, L. (6 March 2026), The Backbench Business Committee 15 years on: How successful has it been in giving backbench MPs a stronger voice in the House of Commons?, (Hansard Society blog)

This work was supported by a Small Research Grant from the School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester.