Government efforts to derail support for this Bill with the promise of a commission failed, resulting in the biggest show of backbench support for a non-governmental Bill since the Private Member's Bill to ban fox-hunting in 1997.

The support given by Labour MPs for Andrew Miller's Bill should not be seen as a rebellion, but democracy in action. This was a clear manifestation of constituent and trade union representation to their Members of Parliament.

Further, legislation to protect agency workers was promised in the Warwick Agreement and Labour's manifesto for the 2005 general election. It is supported by the Parliamentary Labour Party, has been endorsed by the National Executive Committee and is backed by the labour movement throughout the country.

So, the party has spoken and its voice was resounding. Why, then, should we now agree to co-operate with the proposal for a commission whose terms of reference mean it would not adhere to the principle of equal treatment for agency workers from an early stage of employment and that it would give just one person, the independent chair, the final say?

Let us be under no doubt that the idea of a Johnny-come-lately commission, apparently aimed to steer Britain to an agreement within the relevant European Union directive, is yet another attempt by the Government to derail the rising tide of opinion that says there should be legislation - and now.

The latest proposal of a commission follows a long history of shameful obfuscation by the Government on agency workers. Since 2005, ministers have been engaged in an Orwellian act of doublespeak - actively impeding the progress of an EU directive to protect agency workers, while telling the British labour movement that they are supporting that same directive.

As recently as December last year, at a Council of Ministers' meeting, the Labour Government blocked the progress of the directive.

Some commentators have compared the proposal for a commission on agency working with the respected Low Pay Commission, but there are fundamental differences.

In particular, the Low Pay Commission was a manifesto commitment. There was no such proposal in the 2005 manifesto, just a commitment to legislate. The emergence of the agency workers' commission proposal came only as the Government realised its own backbenchers were going to vote in large numbers for Andrew Miller's Bill.

This issue and the deflective proposal of a commission go to the very heart of democracy and governmental responsibility. Our Government has a responsibility here to the party and the millions of people who voted Labour.

The party and the broader electorate, including more than a million agency workers, have a right to demand action.

We need to know where the Government stands - not least if it even supports the principle of the right to equal treatment for agency workers.

We want to know what the Government thinks the qualifying period should be for agency staff to earn the same pay and rights as directly employed staff.

These are all political decisions that have to be made by the Government - and quickly. The idea of deferring them to an independently-chaired commission or to the business lobby takes the matter out of the hands of directly-elected politicians.

We must be clear that there seems little point in the participation of the CBI and the TUC in this matter. With employers currently arguing for a 12-month qualifying period and trade unions looking towards day one rights, the chair of the commission would be asked to make a compromise decision. This would lead to a commission proposal for a four- or five-month qualifying period which the union movement would be bound to accept by virtue of participation in the commission.

With such a position, there are only two possible outcomes. Either the Labour Government proposes to its European colleagues that they increase the qualifying period in the directive to that of the period proposed by the commission in this country, or ministers claim our social partners have a national agreement and seek another unacceptable British opt-out from European legislation.

If the commission was solely restricted to the technicalities of implementation and not the principles of legislation, then people might not be so sceptical. Both parliamentarians and trade unions have significant concerns about handing the question of a qualifying period to an independent body with no clear remit.

Those supporting legislation now are in the ascendancy. We need to bring together the solidarity and the momentum that the labour movement has gained around this issue to stand firm against the proposal for a commission that does not first accept the principle of equal treatment at the outset of employment.

As well as being a test for the trade unions and the Labour Party, this is also a crucial and telling test for the Government. Will ministers listen to and respond to their own party and supporters or continue pandering to the business lobby?

The British electorate entrusted decision-making to this Government. It needs to govern in the interests of the people and support legislation at EU or domestic level that implements equal treatment with immediate effect.