The Commons Modernisation Committee scrutinises the procedures and working practices of the House of Commons to identify efficiency improvements and reforms. The committee operates as a House of Commons select committee and takes oral evidence from members, officials, and other witnesses. It examines how parliamentary business is conducted and identifies barriers to effective scrutiny and participation. Recent work has focused on access to House procedures and how members engage with parliamentary mechanisms, with sessions examining the operation of the Commons in June and July 2025. The committee has also investigated the role and effectiveness of the Backbench Business Committee and Petitions Committee in enabling members to raise constituent concerns and secure debate time. This reflects the committee's ongoing concern with how the House can improve responsiveness to both backbench MPs and the public.
Meeting activity
3 sessions published in the last 12 months
MonWedFriSun
AugSeptOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAug
LessMore· cell = sessions per day
Select a day
Click any cell in the heatmap to see the sessions held that day and the insights extracted from them.
The session scrutinised how Back-Bench business and petitions debates are scheduled, where they should take place, and how to manage demand more effectively. Witnesses broadly supported moving some Back-Bench business off Thursdays, using shorter or deferred votes, and giving the Backbench Business Committee more control over Westminster Hall slots. On petitions, they argued for qualitative selection rather than a pure signature threshold, warned against treating the Chamber as inherently more prestigious, and highlighted the need to protect Westminster Hall’s role. Witnesses also raised concerns about urgent questions and statements increasingly squeezing time for substantive business, and suggested more co-ordination between the Backbench Business Committee and Petitions Committee.
The session scrutinised how the Backbench Business Committee was created, why it was designed as a Back-Bench forum for topical, cross-party debates, and how its remit should remain limited rather than being loaded with additional functions. Witnesses argued that petitions are a different constitutional purpose: a public-engagement mechanism that belongs with a dedicated Petitions Committee, but that the current 10,000/100,000 thresholds and debate expectations need better triage and expectation management. They also pressed for more predictable prorating of Backbench Business time over long Sessions, and for a closer working relationship with House business managers to manage demand and avoid clashes with Government business.
This session examined how the Backbench Business Committee (BBB) and the Petitions Committee allocate debate time and manage demand. BBB chair Bob Blackman and Jamie Stone, chair of the Petitions Committee, outline options to improve scheduling, including protected time, potential for three debates on Thursdays, and better advance planning for a longer session. They discuss whether Petition Committee debates should have dedicated Chamber time rather than drawing from BBB allocations, and mechanisms to escalate petitions to the Chamber while noting accessibility and follow-up concerns for petitioners. The discussion also covers Westminster Hall versus Chamber debates, topicality, and potential use of standing-order changes and Select Committee statements to spread time more effectively. Government commitments were not explicitly stated; the dialogue focused on proposed reforms and practical constraints.