Opposition politician John Barritt is calling for backbench MPs to play a “much more meaningful and important role” and possibly get a pay rise for doing so.The Shadow Public Administration Reform Minister claims backbenchers such as him, who earn $56,000 a year, are often “just cheerleaders or critics on the floor of the House of Assembly” engaged in an “exercise of futility”.He told The Royal Gazette he wanted to see a more active parliamentary committee system, which he said would increase the workload of MPs and necessitate the need for “reevaluation of compensation”.Mr Barritt spoke out after Government MP Dale Butler suggested backbenchers and Cabinet Ministers should earn the same amount of about $70,000 a year; most full-time Ministers currently earn $168,000.Backbencher Mr Butler commented after voting in favour of the Tucker’s Point SDO, despite disagreeing with it, because he wanted to remain a PLP candidate in the next election.A levelling of MPs’ pay would, he claimed, ensure no one had to consider the “advantages” of their position when faced with such a choice.Mr Barritt said the large pay difference was “obviously made on the basis that a Cabinet Minister has to spend a great deal more time on Government business”.He added: “I understand the point he is trying to make but I take a slightly different approach than Mr Butler to the problem.“We should create opportunities for backbench MPs, Government and Opposition, to play a much more meaningful and important role than just cheerleaders or critics on the floor of the House.“My own view is, and this has been highlighted once again by the recently-concluded debate on the [Budget] estimates, that being a bright, competent, energised and enthusiastic backbencher in an increasingly ritualistic, theatrical and important House is an exercise in futility.”He said backbenchers didn’t always get a chance to speak and ask questions and even when they did there was “invariably” no time for any answers or real exchange with Ministers.“Improving how we conduct that debate is one answer,” he said. “But I believe the other solution is to employ committees to a far greater extent than we do, much like we have done with the joint select committee on crime, and to extend committees to other issues of continuing and great concern to the community.”The UBP politician described the cross-party Public Accounts Committee, which began meeting publicly last year, as playing a “very important and critical role” in keeping a close eye on Government spending.He suggested there should be other committees to monitor, make recommendations and get public feedback on matters such as health care costs, health insurance and education.“This could be of great assistance in developing policy in critical areas, as well as helping to change the political culture around here, getting MPs from all sides to roll up their sleeves and work together to a greater extent than currently happens.“If we commit to this form of governance and provide the necessary resources, I think the value and worth of backbenchers will increase significantly.“This will, of course, mean more work and with more work there would be a reevaluation of compensation, which could be addressed by way of fees for committee work, based on attendance.”Minister without Portfolio Michael Weeks told the House of Assembly a nine percent increase in the budget for the Legislature for 2011/12 was partly to pay for an “expected increase in the number of parliamentary committee meetings held in public”.MPs agreed in March last year that select committees could decide themselves whether their meetings should remain private or be open to the public.