But I believe that the voters' unhappiness with politicians is about more than just expenses claims. It is something much deeper and more profound – a feeling that the political class are not interested in and do not care about issues that matter to ordinary people.

The opportunity to take your own Bill through Parliament is one of the few opportunities ordinary backbenchers get to make a difference. I have been lucky enough to get three such Bills on to the Statute Book.

Last Friday I introduced my Forces Widows' Pensions (Equality of Treatment) Bill in the House. It is a modest Bill with a modest aim: to end an odious anomaly by which the pensions of some widows – those whose husbands retired before 1973 – are only entitled to one-third of their late husband's pension while widows since then get a half of their spouse's pension.

My Bill had all-party support and was briefly debated last year before time ran out. But this year I thought my luck was in. The Autism Bill was also being debated last Friday – it was the first item on the agenda at 9.30am and we had five hours to go. This Bill also had all-party support but, crucially, the backing of the Government as well.

So one would have expected the Third Reading (it had already been in committee) to be over in a matter of minutes: a mere formality.

But, having been warned to be ready to start as early as 10am, I sat there until after 12.30pm. Ann Keen, the Health Minister, replying to the Bill spoke for more than an hour. I do not blame her because she was simply doing the Whips' bidding.

After less than half an hour, I realised what was up, and knew my Bill was unlikely to come to a decision, but I persevered: I asked her why, since this Bill had agreement from everyone, she needed to spend more than an hour debating its merits. She said she had a lot of explaining to do for the benefit of the House: not one person believed her.

So my Bill came on around 12.30pm. I spoke for seven or eight minutes, my Front Bench spokesman for five and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for another five. The Minister replying, Kevan Jones from the Ministry of Defence, then started to speak. He took one-and-a-half hours until 2.30pm was reached. Five hours debate, of which two Ministers had spoken for more than half.

All this because the Government did not wish to be seen to be voting against a Bill aimed at helping poor, elderly widows.

Talking out legislation is a time-honoured way of blocking something MPs do not want. One famous example was when my former colleague Sir Ivan Lawrence spoke for over four hours against putting fluoride in water. Lawrence did not stop the Bill but such was the force of his argument that many water companies were afraid to use the powers they had been given until the law was changed in 2003.

Lawrence was speaking against a Government Bill – in fact, a Bill promoted by a government of which he was usually a supporter. The right to try and delay government Bills is an important right for a backbencher – or at least it was, because since 1997 Labour has taken it away.

If I wanted to speak for four hours today on a Government Bill, I would find it impossible. All Government Bills are subject to what is euphemistically called a "timetable motion" – better known as a guillotine. This sets out how much time is allowed for each stage of the Bill and it will often restrict not just the total time for debate but the amount allowed for parts of the Bill. In other words, the Government dictates how much time their opponents have to discuss their proposals.

But Private Member's Bills are supposed to be different. There are no timetable motions, rarely restrictions on the length of speeches in debates on them and a number of Fridays each session are reserved so as to ensure they can be debated. Sadly, the traditional respect for Private Member's Bills is under attack – as I found to my cost last Friday.

Many ideas for restoring trust in Parliament have been put forward in recent weeks but none has related to backbench Bills. I believe that has to change.

As part of a genuine reform of Parliament, we should ensure that Ministers' cannot filibuster backbench Bills. There should not only be time set aside for debates but a guarantee that the debate can be concluded with a vote. The Government is then, of course, perfectly entitled to use its majority, but at least there would be an honest expression of opinion.

You may think this is a small matter. In a sense you would be right – it is the major Government Bills that affect our lives most. But the right of a backbench MP to bring forward a public Bill for debate is a very important one in a democratic society. Inevitably most such Bills will fail but that is not the point; an issue will have been raised in Parliament, Ministers obliged to explain what the Government thinks and – most importantly – the House given the opportunity to take a view. That is precisely what we have a Parliament for.

Michael Mates is the Conservative MP for East Hampshire.