Somerset Liberal Democrat Group

The hon. Gentleman has done very well to get his intervention in.

Let me end by thanking the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for raising the issue. We have had an interesting debate, and I look forward to hearing the views of the Procedure Committee in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.

I really cannot give way again, because we are coming to the end of what is normally an Adjournment debate between one Back-Bench Member and a Minister, and tonight we have had a cast of thousands.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale mentioned the cost of early-day motions. The House service estimated that the cost of administering EDMs in 2009-10 was

approximately £1 million. The annual cost may have fallen somewhat as a result of the decision not to print the weekly compilation of EDMs, but those costs should certainly give hon. Members pause for thought before they table motions.

One possible solution is the one suggested by the hon. Gentleman, who proposed that EDMs should only appear electronically. The cost estimate to which I referred earlier indicated that about three quarters of the costs of EDMs were attributable to printing. It is clear that the database is now the main means by which people outside this place, as well as many inside it, access EDMs. My own view is that the time is fast approaching when more categories of business papers can be made available primarily or exclusively in electronic form-I imagine that some will gasp with horror at that suggestion, but I believe that it is one way in which we can actually save the taxpayer money-and that early-day motions may be in the vanguard of change in that regard.

I think the debate has demonstrated that the time may soon be ripe for the Procedure Committee to look again at the subject of early-day motions, and we have just heard its the Chair, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), say that he would be more than happy to put the matter to the Committee. It is for the Committee and for the House, rather than the Government and this Minister at the Dispatch Box, to specify the appropriate procedure. If proposals for reform were presented-either along the lines advocated by the hon. Gentleman, or in another form as a result of the Procedure Committee's considerations-it would be for the House to decide on the appropriate solution following a debate in Back-Bench time. In the context of a reformed House with more control over its own affairs, it is not for the Government to present proposals for change in this area. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue relating to the way in which we as a House conduct our business.

Perhaps I might surprise the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) by telling him that I now have time to allow him to intervene, if he does so quickly.

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I think there is some substance to it, as it in no way undermines the fact that it is an important issue that-

All right, yes-very clever.

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who rather pre-empts the final comment that I was going to make. I was going to ask him and his Committee to take this matter forward. I now know that when I make that request, the answer will be in the affirmative, for which I am grateful.

I will give way to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, because he has a role in taking this matter forward.

I do not think I can really take any interventions at this point, because of the time.

There is no doubt that some early-day motions are of considerable importance in the topics they raise. What I think the hon. Member for Weaver Vale was saying is that there may be better ways of bringing those matters to the House than the current system. There are also things that, frankly, I would be amazed if the House spent its time debating in real life, as opposed to the application that an early-day motion purports to be.

There are ways in which the issue could be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman suggested that limits might be imposed on the number of early-day motions that an individual Member could table or sign. Those are matters for the Procedure Committee to consider, should it decide to do so, but numerical limits, which were also

suggested in an intervention, might be seen as an unexceptional constraint on hon. Members' freedom of action. The implementation of a limit might encourage the syndication of motions. Limits would certainly provide an incentive for hon. Members to ensure that they used their right to table or support motions wisely, but at a cost, in terms of the limitation of their action.

I will, but I will have to make progress soon.

If I may gently say so, I think there is a difference of kind between those causes, which I think most people would consider to be serious causes, and the fortunes of the local football club on a Saturday afternoon. I think there is a difference, perhaps, in scale of import between those topics.

I will return to that point in a moment. Yes, the Backbench Business Committee considers any matter brought forward by Back-Bench Members, but it has shown its willingness to enable EDMs to be debated. It demonstrated that by providing time for a debate, on 10 March last year, on an EDM concerning the work of UN Women.

Drawing on a Procedure Committee recommendation in 2007 that was endorsed by the House on 25 October 2007, the Committee also enabled an EDM to be tagged as "relevant" to the debate on parliamentary reform, which took place in Westminster Hall just over a year ago, on 3 February 2011. The Committee can also draw on EDMs to provide evidence of the breadth of support among Members for a subject of debate, as it did in the case of the Fish Fight campaign. Were they to be named something else, their effectiveness at introducing subjects, with the support of Members, for the Committee to consider would not be reduced. It is a fact that EDMs have that function.

Although the Committee has fundamentally changed how business in the House is determined-and changed it for the better, in my view-some myths about EDMs linger on, although the hon. Member for Weaver Vale exploded some of them this evening. We are concerned about the propensity of pressure groups effectively to mislead our constituents into thinking that EDMs are something that they are not-an avenue to a procedure in the House-and to suggest that there is a magical number of signatories on an EDM that will cause it to be debated, which of course there is not.

That notion has persisted over the years, despite the absence of evidence to support it. It might be expedient for some pressure groups and lobbyists to perpetuate that myth and to raise false expectations among our constituents. We have all received e-mails stating that such-and-such an EDM is of critical importance and that we must sign them-I, as a Minister, cannot sign them any more, so I have a ready excuse, but I know that other Members sometimes feel pressurised by that sort of campaign.

The new House, selected in 2010, seems to have many more Members sceptical about the value of adding their names to EDMs. The average number of new signatories per week fell from 3,704 in the last financial

year of the previous Parliament, to 1,965 in the first financial year of this Parliament. More Members have decided to adopt a policy of not signing early-day motions-I think we heard an example earlier. Indeed, I understand that Members can record that view with the Table Office. Above all, the Backbench Business Committee has demonstrated through its work that the link between early-day motions and debates is not a crude numbers game. For those reasons, I hope that all Members agree that the myth of a magical number of signatories should be confined to the dustbin, where it belongs.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale identified a further problem-others have amplified it-in the triviality of some early-day motions. He referred to what he saw as some examples of early-day motions that devalued the currency. I certainly do not want to comment on any individual cases, but I agree with him that it seems highly questionable whether some early-day motions are appropriate, and that Members should pause for thought about the reputational and cost implications of their actions.

It was for precisely that reason and connected reasons that the Procedure Committee in the previous Parliament decided against recommending the abolition of EDMs or their substantive reform. However-there are several "howevers"-a major area of discontent for many years, as reflected in the Procedure Committee's

report in the last Parliament, concerned the lack of connection between EDMs, whose ostensible purpose was to set down a motion for debate in the House on an unspecified day, and the provision of time on the Floor of the House. The House has taken a major step to respond to this problem with the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee, as I mentioned at the outset.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on securing this debate, and on securing such a sparkling attendance by colleagues for a late-night Adjournment debate. Since entering the House in 2010, he has shown consistent interest in reforming early-day motions, most notably by tabling-with tongue in cheek, as he said- an early-day motion entitled "Early-Day Motions" in July 2010.

I ought to begin by saying that there are, rightly, limits to the Government's responsibilities for the matters under debate. That was not always so. Between 1994 and 2010, the Government had a very large element of control over whether motions tabled by Back Benchers could be debated on the Floor of the House. The Government were thus the proper recipient of requests for debates on or arising from early-day motions. I seem to recall that that was often a feature of the weekly business question.

Since the welcome advent of the Backbench Business Committee following a decision of the House in June 2010, it now rightly falls to that Committee to decide what subjects will be debated in Back-Bench time and what form motions for debate should take. Of course, the Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, continue to examine early-day motions as barometers of opinion on public policy and matters meriting debate.

When the Procedure Committee last considered early-day motions in 2007, seven categories or purposes for early-day motions were identified: first, to express opinions on matters of general public interest, often to assess the degree of support among Members; secondly, to continue a political debate, for example by criticising the Government or the Opposition; thirdly, to give prominence to a campaign or the work of some pressure group outside the House, and I will return to that in a moment; fourthly, to highlight local issues, such as the success of a local football team, the achievements of constituents or the need for a bypass; fifthly, to pray against a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure, both to draw attention to opposition and to encourage referral of the instrument for debate; sixthly, to criticise individuals, including other hon. Members, whose conduct can be criticised only on a substantive motion, and I think that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has raised that matter before now; and seventhly, to set out detailed criticisms, such as of a company or body, under the protection of parliamentary privilege.

As the above categories suggest, the scope for early-day motions is wide. Individual hon. Members' freedom to table them is great. EDMs can be viewed in some ways as a safety valve when Members find their ability to express views limited by the availability of time or by the rules of the House.

Is that not what I said? I do apologise: Stocksbridge. Speaking as someone whose constituency name is almost always mispronounced, I have the greatest sympathy if the hon. Lady has the same problem.

I was disappointed by what the hon. Lady said. She seems to be taking up the concerns of the Liaison Committee, even though I have satisfied the Liaison Committee. The fact that it is content with my proposals is not good enough for her. She still thinks that the Liaison Committee ought to be more upset than it is. Well it is not: the Liaison Committee is satisfied with our proposals. She adduced the "mystery" of why the matter was not put before the House in December, but I made it perfectly plain that the reason was a problem with the motion, which was down to an administrative error. However, given that we could not propose the motion on that day, I aimed to derive what I hoped would be some benefit from the delay by saying that it gave us more time to explore and satisfy the concerns of the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee, and that is exactly what we did.

I have given clear indications about the procedures that we will adopt to ensure that Committees are not disadvantaged, but have the opportunity to make their cases properly. However, at the end of the day, I cannot go against the legislation. I cannot rip up legislation that this House and the other House passed so recently and say, "Right, we'll now have a completely different procedure." However, I can work within the legislation to maximise scrutiny by the Committees of this House and the wider House and ensure that every Member has the opportunity to have their say. I believe that that is what we have put before the House today, after consultation with the Committees, and I urge the House to support the motion.

With the leave of the House, I should like to thank Members for that short debate.

I shall deal with the points made in reverse order, and turn first to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). He will be aware that the Committee discussed the Welsh aspects of these bodies an awful lot-I remember detailed discussions of the merits, or otherwise, of Pobol y Cwm and so on. I absolutely understand the locus that regionality has in some of the bodies. The suggestion is that the departmental Select Committees have that trigger-I think that he understands that-but he made a perfectly valid point:

where there is a strong territorial element in the body in question, the trigger should be exercised in the knowledge of the effect it would have in an area.

I would expect the Welsh Affairs Committee to play a part in matters relating directly to Wales and to make early representations to the relevant Select Committee, encouraging it to pull the trigger for the 60-day process. Once that process was in place and the scrutiny period under way, however, I would expect the Committee to produce a short report, particularly on matters relating to Sianel Pedwar Cymru but also on other things in which it has an interest. The report would be treated as a representation under section 11(6)(a) of the Public Bodies Act, and the Minister would have to have regard to it.

I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that the Welsh Affairs Committee would have a direct locus in intervening to make the House aware of its concerns. Although the Public Bodies Act stipulates that there may be a delegated powers Committee, we have made it abundantly clear that if a request was made for the matter to be dealt with on the Floor of the House it would normally be acceded to. In that case, all Members with an interest would have an opportunity to participate and make their views known before the House finally reached a decision. I hope that that goes some way to assuaging his concerns and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who is an utterly reasonable chap. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman agrees with him so often.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) expressed a number of concerns on behalf of her Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which, again, I well understand. It so happens that her Committee has an early rush, as it were, on the provisions in the legislation, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs plans to make early proposals, as she said, on British Waterways, the Inland Waterways Advisory Council and the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances.

Let me say first that, yes, if the House accepts this Standing Order today, the hon. Lady's Committee will be the relevant Committee. Therefore, she has that trigger in her hands-or the hands of her Committee-for extended scrutiny. I understand that that will involve a reasonable work load for her Committee. I sympathise with her about that, but I believe it is better for her Committee to do that work rather than somebody else, elsewhere in the House, who knows nothing about the subject. There is no limitation on what Committees can scrutinise in their role as departmental Select Committees. That extends not just to bodies that are listed in schedules, but to those where there are no changes. If there are no changes, she will not be acting under this procedure, but her Committee will still have the capacity to consider the matter.

I understand the hon. Lady's point about the House of Lords having its arrangements in place earlier than the House of Commons. I would have liked to introduce things earlier, but it was important to have the conversation and dialogue with the Select Committees of this House, through the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee, to ensure that we got it right. This House has a much more complex Committee structure than the Lords-we have departmental Committees-so a

slight asymmetry in the way we did that was inevitable. However, I hope that I can persuade her that what we are doing in this case is probably the best way forward.

As far as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stockbridge (Angela Smith) is concerned-

It is clear, from the exchanges that we have already had with the Procedure and Liaison Committees, that we expect Departments to provide that level of notice, and they will normally do so, but there is an exceptional position in the very first instance. We have some bodies on which consultations took place prior to Royal Assent, as was allowed under the legislation, and a dialogue between the Department and the Select Committee might be necessary to ensure that we achieve an acceptable result.

I know that the hon. Lady, on behalf of the Committee that she chairs, has been having such a dialogue with the Department that her Committee shadows, and I am more than happy to assist in any way that I can to ensure that we have a satisfactory outcome. I have given that assurance in correspondence with the Chair of the Liaison Committee, and I am very happy to repeat it today. The guidance to Departments will be very clear about what is expected of them in the execution of their duties under that part of the 2011 Act, and on that basis I hope my assurance is helpful to the hon. Lady. This is a new procedure, and we need to watch all new procedures very carefully to ensure that they achieve the results that the House expects of them.

In conclusion, I assure the House that I will monitor the procedure's operation carefully to ensure that the concerns of Committees about matters on which they have sought assurances are fully responded to. I have reiterated today that the Government are very happy for the operation of the new arrangements to be reviewed about a year after they come into operation. This is an opportunity to enhance the House's scrutiny of secondary legislation, and on that basis Members should welcome it. I commend the motion to the House.

I was beginning to think that we would have a short debate relating to the Act without any mention of Sianel Pedwar Cymru, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for rectifying that omission. I reiterate that I do not think that the proposed procedure creates any obstacle to a Select Committee going about its work in the way it feels is appropriate. This is a trigger mechanism for the House. Where more than one Committee feels that they might have a role, the Liaison Committee

would be able to help and ensure that there were no hurt feelings. The case of S4C might be an obvious example of where two departmental Select Committees have a legitimate interest and, I am sure, would want to express a view at some point in the procedure.

I understand the hon. Lady's point, but let us remember that the proposal is for a trigger mechanism to enable the House to consider matters further; it is not an end in itself. The process as set out in the 2011 Act enables the House to say, "Hang on. We want a little longer to be able to discuss this matter", or for the Minister to put forward proposals in a debate, normally on the Floor of the House if that is requested. Therefore, if one of the cross-cutting Committees has an interest, I am sure that it would rapidly communicate it to the relevant Departmental Select Committee, and that in itself might pull the trigger. I do not think that there is a difficulty. This is not an exclusionary procedure, but simply one suggesting that someone can say, "Stop. We want this extra time so that the House can consider this on its merits", and the decision will probably be that the departmental Select Committee is best placed to do that.

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for supporting the view I have expressed. I think that only the departmental Select Committees could do the job appropriately.

That takes me away a little from the matter of orders relating to the Public Bodies Act, but it is always open for Select Committees to consider their work programmes and to put forward proposals, and it is equally open to hon. Members to make suggestions to Select Committees. Part of the Liaison Committee's role is to try to prevent any undue overlapping of work among Committees and, where there is a potential trespass, to police it, adjudicate and find a successful way forward. There is probably no obstacle to my hon. Friend's suggesting that the Committee looks at something,

but equally the Officers, Clerks and Chair of that Committee have a responsibility to ensure that they do not inappropriately usurp the work of another Committee.