MP’s have the opportunity to influence policy at various stages of the legislative process. The legislative process begins with the first reading of a bill, in which the original bill is published and read out to the commons. This is followed by the second reading, which provides opportunity for debate from MPs, which follows with a vote to proceed to committee stage. The committee stage gives the chance for a public bills committee, created specifically for that bill, to debate each clause of the bill, make amendments, and collect information from pressure groups etc. It then proceeds to the report stage in which, the information and amendments are fed back to the government, who can decide to implement or ignore the changes. It then proceeds to the third reading, in which no amendments can be made, and the bill is debated as a whole, followed by a vote. This process is then mirrored by the House of Lords, followed by a consideration of amendments, until finally it receives the royal assent.

Backbench MPs can exert a lot of influence in the legislative process, both through the vote and the debate. Particularly if the government of the time does not have a strong majority. An example of this was in 2012 when 53 MPs defied Cameron, on the vote regarding EU budget cuts. However, because it is humiliating to the government at the time to lose the vote on legislation, there are particular measures to ensure backbenchers, are unlikely to rebel against the party line. This job is carried out particularly thoroughly by the whips, whose job is to ensure each MP votes with the party. As there is no anonymity in the voting process in terms of legislation, an MP is hindering their career chances if they don’t tow the party line. As most MPs will be looking towards future cabinet positions it is very unlikely they will rebel against the party line. In this way MPs are under complete control and have very little chance to yield any influence on policy making, unless the government does not have an absolute majority.

Backbench MPs have the opportunity to exert the most influence in the committee stage. Public bill committees are made up of MPs, who are there to scrutinise, make amendments, and gather information on the bill. How much influence this scrutiny has often depends on the amount of media traction it generates. The phone hacking scandal for example gained nationwide publicity, which put a lot of pressure on the government to listen to the report the committee was making, as they were under the scrutiny of the public eye. Another example of this was the ‘pasty tax’ in Osborne’s 2012 budget, which was scrapped due to scrutiny from the Treasury Select committee. However public bill committees are not always so successful and their reports are often ignored by government. For example the UN human rights committee’s work remains confidential, and so the government is under no pressure to adhere to their report, as no one will have any way of knowing what it says. Arguably backbench MPs yield no influence at all through the committee stage, as if it gains media traction, its likely that the government would have gone with public opinion, irrespective of the report.

In conclusion the legislative process does not give MPs a significant opportunity to influence policy, as the government has various ways of limiting their power. The government will find a way to push the agenda of the time, and it will only really be public opinion that prevents, that agenda from succeeding. However there is one significant opportunity of MP’s to influence policy, that being private members’ bill. In which an MP’s bill, usually fitting the opinion of both government and opposition is debated. Famous examples include Jenkins’ abortion act (1965), and most recently the Autism act (2009). This is the only real way for backbenchers to yield any significant influence, and the passing of private member bills is a rarity. In terms of public bills backbenchers hold no real influence, and only act to further the agenda of the party they belong to.