Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Theresa May speaking in the House of Commons
‘What is so repellent to the government to use backbenchers and select committees to forge a radical programme?’ Photograph: Mark Duffy/UK Parliament/PA
‘What is so repellent to the government to use backbenchers and select committees to forge a radical programme?’ Photograph: Mark Duffy/UK Parliament/PA

Backbenchers could have been given domestic agenda in run-up to Brexit

This article is more than 6 years old
Frank Field on how the government could have filled the policy vacuum instead of waiting for Brexit

Aside from the occasional skirmish on Brexit, parliament has had very little to do in recent months. In an attempt to fill the domestic reform vacuum described by Isabel Hardman (Tory hopes suffocate in an ideas vacuum, 17 September), I submitted a proposal to the prime minister for the government to give the necessary time and protection to bills presented by backbenchers, as well as select committees, that are approved by the cabinet’s legislative committee. Had this approach been picked up, we could have had a major domestic reform programme without waiting for Brexit.

Indeed, when such an approach was taken by Harold Wilson’s minority government, great strides were made in divorce law reform, the abolition of capital punishment and homosexual law reform.

What is so repellent to the government to use backbenchers and select committees to forge a radical programme for it, while preparing for the crunch decisions on Brexit?
Frank Field MP
Independent, Birkenhead

Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

Most viewed

Most viewed