Written evidence submitted by the Backbench Business Committee (BBB0006)

The Backbench Business Committee is grateful for the opportunity to provide this response to the Modernisation Committee’s call for evidence to its inquiry on Backbench Business Committee and Petitions Committee debates. We look forward to engaging with the Committee as this inquiry progresses and would be happy to provide further evidence to assist the Committee.

Is the current allocation of time for Petitions and Backbench Business debates appropriate and effective?

1. Under Standing Order No. 14(4), 35 days or its equivalent shall be allotted in each session for proceedings in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall on backbench business, of which at least 27 days shall be allotted for proceedings in the Chamber. In practice, the Committee allocates backbench debates in the Chamber on most Thursdays and on days preceding and proceeding the summer, Easter and Christmas recesses.

2. Under Standing Order No. 10(7), business in Westminster Hall on a Thursday is divided between the Backbench Business Committee and Liaison Committee. In practice, nearly all these debates are allocated by Backbench Business Committee. The Committee also has a long-standing informal arrangement with the Chairman of Ways and Means to allocate a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall at 9.30am on Tuesdays.

3. For an average sitting week, therefore, the Committee usually has five debate slots to allocate: three 90-minute debates in Westminster Hall, of which one is on Tuesday morning and two on Thursday afternoon; and two debates of up to three hours each in the Chamber on Thursday afternoon.

4. Demand for backbench business debates has been high in the current Parliament. In the 2024-26 session, the Committee has received on average five debate applications each week and the number of applications for debates in the Chamber has greatly exceeded the number of slots available. The Committee has a waiting list of approximately 40 debates and, as such, Members applying for a Chamber debate in April 2026 are likely to be waiting until October or November 2026 for that debate to take place. Chamber debates are, understandably, more highly sought by Members than those in Westminster Hall, but given the long waiting times, the Committee will usually offer successful applicants the option of a Westminster Hall debate to avoid the wait for the Chamber.

5. Backbench debates in the Chamber are usually well attended and make good use of the time available. More than 70% of backbench debates in the Chamber have had time limits imposed in the 2024-26 session, and more than two-thirds of debates have finished within ten minutes of the Moment of Interruption. However, engagement with backbench business has varied over time, with levels of participation by Members lower towards the end of 2019-24 Parliament, with the Committee frequently receiving fewer applications for debates than it had slots to fill. For the 2023–24 session, the average gap from the end of backbench business debates to the moment of interruption was 36 minutes.

6. Demand for backbench business, especially on Thursdays, can be affected by other pressures on Members’ time, including constituency demands and any upcoming elections. The Committee has called for more time for backbench business on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, including shorter 90-minute debates that could take place before or after Government business. This is something the Committee remains keen to pursue.

What impact, if any, does the timing and scheduling of debates have on attendance?

7.                              In its report marking the 15th anniversary of the Backbench Business Committee, the Committee concluded, “The timing of backbench debates, rather than the subject matter or whether there is a substantive motion, is usually the most significant contributing factor to the level of participation in debates”. The Committee noted that it was disappointing that backbench business has largely been relegated to the “backwater” of Thursday afternoons, given the impact this has on attendance.[1]

8.                              During the 2023-24 session, the Committee often had an insufficient number of applications for debates in Westminster Hall on Thursday afternoons, meaning debating time went unused. Many applicants declined the 3.00pm debate slot, citing the likely low turnout, as Members travelled back to their constituencies. The previous Government agreed to a temporary amendment to Standing Order No. 10(1)(c) to enable Westminster Hall to sit one hour earlier on Thursdays, starting at 12.30pm rather than at 1.30pm. This led to increased take-up of the second debating slot. However, the current Government declined to implement the change permanently, citing concerns that the change might lead to unintended consequences for Ministers’ availability. Westminster Hall debates have since remained at their original start time of 1.30pm. The Modernisation Committee may wish to consider this matter as part of the inquiry.

9.                              Backbench debates that are scheduled for days other than Thursdays are usually substantially better subscribed.  On Monday 13 April 2026, 23 Members participated in the debate on SEND provision and reform, although 40 had registered their interest to do so with the Speaker’s Office. These are typical numbers for Chamber debates held on days other than Thursdays, often requiring time limits to be imposed and any second, subsequent backbench business debate to be cancelled due to lack of time.

Are the 35 days allocated to the Backbench Business Committee appropriate in the context of other demands on the House’s time?

10. The Committee continues to welcome the informal arrangements we have with the Government for approving a pro-rata allocation of backbench days during extended sessions of Parliament, such as the 2024-26 session. However, it would be helpful to codify this arrangement. Our 15th anniversary report called for Standing Orders “to be amended so that backbench days are allocated in proportion to the length of a parliamentary session.”[2] This recommendation was not accepted by the Government.[3]

11. The Committee also recommended that Standing Order No. 14(4) be amended to require the Government to allocate a proportion of the mandated backbench time on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, to improve levels of Member participation in proceedings. Some of this time might be allocated in the form of quarter days, or 90-minute debates, to take place before the Government’s business. In its response to our report, the Government said that the Modernisation Committee may wish to consider our proposal further as part of this inquiry.[4] We hope the Committee will do so.

Is the current allocation of Backbench Business debates between the Chamber (27 days) and Westminster Hall (8 days) correct?

12. Standing Order No. 14(4) provides that 35 days or its equivalent shall be allotted in each session for proceedings in the House and in Westminster Hall on backbench business of which at least 27 shall be allotted for proceedings in the House. While this allocation is a helpful backstop, in practice the Government allocates significantly more days than this. As already noted, the Committee allocates backbench debates in the Chamber for most Thursday afternoons and has had a substantial waiting list for Chamber debates so far in the current Parliament. We consider that the size of the waiting list shows the value Members place on holding debates in the Chamber and the importance of retaining the existing allocation of Chamber days to the Committee.

13. While Standing Order No. 14(4) provides for a minimum of eight days in Westminster Hall, Standing Order No. 10(7) provides that every Thursday afternoon be allocated by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee. In practice, the vast majority of debates on a Thursday afternoon are allocated by the Backbench Business Committee.

14. In its 2012 report entitled Review of the Backbench Business Committee, the Procedure Committee recommended that the Backbench Business Committee allocate the first debate on a Tuesday in Westminster Hall on a trial basis, with the consent of the Chairman of Ways and Means.[5] The trial has proved to be successful and this is now an established process.

15. Given the success of the trial to allocate the first debate on Tuesdays in Westminster Hall, and the large number of applications the Committee receives for debates on Tuesdays compared to Thursdays, in its 15th anniversary report, the Committee invited the Modernisation Committee “to consider whether there could be merit in the Backbench Business Committee supporting the further allocation of Westminster Hall debates on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.”[6]

Are there any improvements that could be made to the Backbench Business Committee’s process to agree applications for backbench business debates (including ensuring debates are popular amongst members and on topical subjects)?

16. Standing Order No. 152J sets out the powers of the Backbench Business Committee but does not prescribe a specific process for Members applying for debates. The Committee currently meets in public on Tuesday afternoons to hear Members’ proposals for debates. Members proposing debates complete an application form in advance which includes a requirement to find Members who would speak in the debate if granted. Applications for debates in the Chamber require 15 supporting Members, while applications for Westminster Hall debates require eight supporting Members. Applicants are required to have an even split between Members of the party of Government and other parties. This is to ensure that there is cross-party interest in the debate and sufficient participation for its duration.

17. The Committee’s application form has evolved over time, with information sought now including the reasons for debate, the nature of any substantive motion being put forward, and whether the Member has already applied for the debate through other routes. We would welcome suggestions for further information that could helpfully be sought from Members as part of our application process, including whether there is an e-petition relevant to the debate and the number of supporting signatures.

18. In the current Parliament up to 13 April 2026, there were 478 Members who signed multiple debate applications. The top five signatories signed between 67 and 43 submissions. The Committee monitors and keeps a record of whether Members supporting Chamber applications do participate in those debates. While levels of participation in debates by signatories is variable, most debates in the 2024-26 session have had time limits imposed, indicating good levels of participation in general.

19. The Committee approves the vast majority of the debate applications it receives, on the basis that, unless there are procedural grounds for rejection, applicants who have found a sufficient number of Members to support their debate should be allowed to hold it. The Committee may advise applicants that their debates should be on a substantive motion rather than a general debate, or be held in alternative locations, but we usually approve applications that meet our criteria. In the 2024-26 session we have rejected only one application, as it duplicated another already on our waiting list. The Member applying was invited to merge their application with the one already submitted.

20. The Committee operates a waiting list for approved applications and allocates debates primarily on a first-come-first served basis, several weeks in advance. We believe this is the fairest and most transparent way to allocate debates.

21. The increase in the level of demand for debates in the current Parliament has given the Committee greater leeway to seek amendments to unsuitable applications. This contrasts with the end of the last Parliament, when the average number of applications per week was less than the number of debates to fill, requiring all applications—whether or not they appeared suitable for the Chamber—to be accepted.[7]

22. The practical necessity for the Committee to allocate debates far in advance has had the effect of limiting the topicality of many of these debates. We recognise this is a concern and that the Committee was designed to be responsive to the current interests of Members and the public. The Committee is considering whether to use its existing powers under Standing Order No. 24A to allocate short notice ‘Topical Debates’ on matters of urgent regional, national or international importance. Such debates could be determined by the Committee at its Tuesday meeting, to take place in the Chamber on a Thursday afternoon or at another time allocated by the Government. We would welcome the Modernisation Committee’s view on this.

Are the existing mechanisms available for the Petitions Committee to hold debates in the Chamber (to apply via Backbench Business Committee, or to be allocated time by the Government) sufficient or should the Petitions Committee have guaranteed time in the Chamber?

23. The Committee would not support a reduction in Chamber time for backbench business in order to facilitate Petitions Committee debates. It is important to note that the Petitions Committee is already able to apply for Chamber debates through the Backbench Business Committee and, were applications made by them, they would be prioritised ahead of other debates on the waiting list.

24. Retaining the existing process would allow the Backbench Business Committee to have a useful filtering role, ensuring that qualifying Petitions Committee debates are appropriate for debate in the Chamber. This reflects the intention of our predecessor Committee, which recommended the creation of a separate Petitions Committee to facilitate debate on qualifying petitions, rather than placing responsibility for allocating time for petition debates directly with the Backbench Business Committee.[8]

25. We also note that backbench Members supporting e-petitions can highlight them in their applications when applying for Chamber debates via the Backbench Business Committee. By contrast, Petitions Committee debates are usually led by Members of that Committee, who may not support the e-petition in question.

26. As noted above, we would be willing to consider further changes to our application forms, including seeking information on relevant e-petitions, to help encourage backbench Members to consider their debate applications in the context of the e-petitions process.

April 2026