Watchdogs or lapdogs? If asked, Mr Acting Editor, I’m pretty sure I know which role the voting public would prefer their MPs play on the Hill.There is no good reason why backbench MPs, i.e. those who do not sit Cabinet, should be reduced only to voices who parrot the party script, with some variation here and there, and who must vote the party line no matter their own personal views.My view is that they deserve more to do.You don’t need me to tell you, for instance, how scripted and sterile debates can become when backbenchers, whether Government or Opposition, come off like puppets who exist only to bob up and down with the party whip pulling the strings. The occasional good speech notwithstanding, this is neither enlightening, nor entertaining. Ministers meanwhile, get to read lengthy statements or from briefs that are anything but.I have always maintained that the one way to buck this trend, and to make members more productive, is to more effectively employ the committee system. I was therefore surprised when one reader chided me last week when he or she (bloggers love their pseudonyms) assumed, incorrectly, that I was against the proposed select committee on elections. I was not, and I am not. Also for the record, and just to be clear, neither was I advising the OBA Government on this or any other motion.I have not changed my mind on the efficacy of legislative committees. We have to date only seen glimpses of the good they can do and that is because they have not been employed as fully and as effectively as they could.Committees can give backbench MPs, both Government and Opposition, a welcome opportunity to cut their teeth and show their mettle, but this time sitting around a table, shoulder to shoulder, establishing their worth through dialogue and questions, due diligence and application to the task at hand, and all in the public spotlight, hearings being open to press and general public.What is needed is a concerted effort to make committees happen, and become a common feature of the Legislature, and by concerted I mean a combined effort of both Government and Opposition, although obviously with a majority in the House the OBA Government must take the lead on this. With limited numbers of backbenchers and Senators (who can serve where joint select committees are established), there can only be so many committees each year and so between them, Government and Opposition, possibly through the good office of the Speaker, can decide on how many and what each will tackle. Election reform qualifies in my books, healthcare, particularly costs and insurance, is another.The usefulness of committees is not just in the hearings, and the opportunity also for the public to participate, but in helping to develop public policy through recommendations, while at the same time, where appropriate, serving as a body of review of decisions of the Cabinet.We already have one standing committee of the House, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chaired by the Opposition, which should be leading the way. It is meant to operate as the chief parliamentary watchdog of Government spending. Sadly, my information is that the PAC has only met once since the OBA became the Government.One other potential benefit to committees is this: once established as an accepted and acceptable form of governance, they could mitigate against the politics as war mentality that is a common feature of winner take all elections, which unfortunately makes post-election relationships difficult, if not impossible, and lead instead to more informed decision-making involving representatives from all sides of the House.