House of Commons Procedure Committee

Review of the backbench Business Committee

Second Report of Session 2012–13

Volume II Additional written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 7 November 2012

Published on 22 November 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00

Procedure Committee

The Procedure Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business, and to make recommendations.

Membership during the Session Mr Charles Walker MP (Conservative, Broxbourne) (Chair) Jenny Chapman MP (Labour, Darlington) Nic Dakin MP (Labour, Scunthorpe) Thomas Docherty MP (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Sir Roger Gale MP (Conservative, North Thanet) Helen Goodman MP (Labour, Bishop Auckland) Mr James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Tom Greatrex MP (Lab/Co-op, Rutherglen and Hamilton West) John Hemming MP (Liberal Democrat, Birmingham Yardley) Mr David Nuttall MP (Conservative, Bury North) Jacob Rees-Mogg MP (Conservative, North East Somerset) Martin Vickers MP (Conservative, Cleethorpes)

The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Rt Hon Greg Knight MP (Conservative, Yorkshire East) (Chair until 6 September 2012) Karen Bradley MP (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands) Andrew Percy MP (Conservative, Brigg and Goole) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Angela Smith MP (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Sir Peter Soulsby MP (Labour, Leicester South) Mike Wood MP (Labour, Batley and Spen)

Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 147. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/proccom.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Huw Yardley (Clerk), Lloyd Owen (Second Clerk), Rowena Macdonald and Carolyn Bowes (Committee Assistants).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Procedure Committee, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3318; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].

3

List of additional written evidence

(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/proccom)

1 Responses to review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee (P 240, 2010---12) Ev w1 2 Defence Committee, House of Commons (P 247, 2010---12) Ev w4 3 Dr Meg Russell, The Constitution Unit, University College London (P 250, 2010---12) Ev w5 4 John Hemming MP (P 259, 2010---12) Ev w8 5 Caroline Lucas MP (P 263, 2010---12) Ev w13 6 Rt Hon Elfyn Llwyd MP (P 02, 2012---13) Ev w14 7 Liaison Committee (P 05, 2012–13) Ev w16 8 Naomi Long MP, Alliance Party Deputy Leader (P 12, 2012---13) Ev w16 9 Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP, Chair, Liaison Committee (P 24, 2012–13) Ev w16 10 Lindsay Hoyle MP, Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy Speaker (P33, 2012–13) Ev w16

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Responses to Review of the Operation of the Backbench Business Committee (P 240, 2010–12) Mr Tobias Ellwood MP (Conservative, Bournemouth East) Could I welcome this opportunity to comment on the Backbench Business Committee. I do believe it requires reform as it is lacks clarity in what function it is expected to perform. Gone are the set debates in Government time such as an annual debate on fishing or defence procurement. Both could be set to be minority interest subjects but under the new system they do not get debated at all— they get pushed aside by the popularist subjects such as Europe. There should be a clear strategy of what debates should be covered throughout the year with time provided for the more topical issues which can be included at short notice. The last time defence was debated, it was squeezed in with yet another debate on Europe which meant neither subject was treated fairly due to limited time. Defence speeches were limited to just four minutes. The committee seem to use the debate time allocations as their own pet hobby horse. Not everyone can make the Tuesday meeting to offer suggestions and there must be a better way (perhaps on line) of offering suggestions. Perhaps subjects should fit into cabinet areas, in the same way Westminster Hall debates are grouped. The powers of the committee need to be reduced with tighter parameters set from which the committee should answer to. If the Government does no longer hold set subject debates as this time allocation has been handed to the backbenches then perhaps there should be suggestions on subjects which the Government would like to be discussed. Other than some activists, I know of few MPs who are enthused to get involved with the committee’s activities. It’s a new concept but already seems out of date and in the ownership of the awkward squad. Finally, there needs to be far more warning on when debates will take place. This of course is subject to the business of the House. But a greater lead-up on subjects would enable MPs to plan their lives around debates which they would like to participate in. 10 February 2012

Steve Baker MP (Conservative, Wycombe) — The composition of the Committee and the process for electing its members; No observations — whether the Chair of the Committee should be reserved for an Opposition Member; No. It is backbench business, not Opposition business. — whether a place on the Committee should be reserved for the minority parties; Yes—particularly as they are likely to be permanently on the backbenches. — the amount of time available to the Committee; Until Parliamentary business is entirely under the control of the House, the present amount seems reasonable. — the way in which the Government allocates time to the Committee; No observations — the powers of the Committee; and No observations — the process by which the Committee determines the matters to be debated in backbench time. The process should be revised along the lines proposed by Graham Allen to sweep up EDMs into a process for determining back-bench time which does not rely on the quality of the bid on the day. 11 February 2012

Rt Hon Mr John Redwood MP (Conservative, Wokingham) I think the Backbench Committee is an excellent idea. I wish to see it guaranteed one day a week to choose the business. The government has too often withheld time or delayed making it available. There are more topics that need debate than we can fit in at the moment. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Ev w2 Procedure Committee: Evidence

I do not think we should seek to require the chairman or members to be of a particular party. These issues should be settled when necessary by negotiation and agreement. 12 February 2012

Justin Tomlinson MP (Conservative, North Swindon) 1. I think members of the Committee should be elected for a whole Parliament as with any select committee. 2. I think it is best if the Chairman is an opposition MP to guarantee its independence from the Government of the day. 3. I definitely believe that at least one member of the Committee should be from a minor party. 4. The time available to the Committee should be fixed and there should be fixed dates well in advance to make planning debates much easier. 5. As above. 6. and 7) As they are now, ie prioritising topical issues (of interest to the public) and issues which will attract interest from MPs, thus making good use of the allocated time. 15 February 2012

Alex Cunningham MP (Labour, Stockton North) — The composition of the Committee and the process for electing its members—seems fine to me; — whether the Chair of the Committee should be reserved for an Opposition Member—I would support this; — whether a place on the Committee should be reserved for the minority parties—yes; — the amount of time available to the Committee—it is difficult to comment on this as the lack of genuine government business has led to a substantial amount of time in the chamber for the BBBC, something that will not happen in the future; — the way in which the Government allocates time to the Committee—as above—government have been generous but only to fit their own timetable. There needs to be a substantial minimum allocation which can then be topped up; — the powers of the Committee—fine; — the process by which the Committee determines the matters to be debated in backbench time—I think the system works well and is well chaired though the time allowed for submissions is a little short due to the high number of bids. 15 February 2012

Rt Hon David Davis MP (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden) — The composition of the Committee and the process for electing its members; Ok as is; — whether the Chair of the Committee should be reserved for an Opposition Member; Yes; — whether a place on the Committee should be reserved for the minority parties; Yes; — the amount of time available to the Committee; Nowhere near enough; — the way in which the Government allocates time to the Committee; Should be Speakers decision; — the powers of the Committee; Motions should be unlimited and capable of being binding on government; — the process by which the Committee determines the matters to be debated in backbench time: Ok. There should be a strong convention against whipping this business. 1 March 2012

Nick Harvey MP (Liberal Democrat, North Devon) The procedure for electing—and composition—of the Committee is fine. The Chair should be from the opposition side of the House. There should be a place for minority parties (isn’t that all parties?) Too much time is available to the committee—I supported it at the outset, but there is simply too much of a good thing. One day a fortnight...? I would like to see Friday private Members’ sittings moved to Monday mornings, with that taking half the Mondays and the backbench committee taking the alternate Mondays. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w3

In terms of the committee’s powers and its decisions, it is just too erratic: we must know where we are on Thursday afternoon further ahead than we do. It is worse than the old days! 7 March 2012

Mr Bernard Jenkin MP, Chairman, Public Administration Select Committee (Conservative, Harwich and North Essex) Generally, the BBBC has been an unqualified success. For the first time for many decades, the House has been able to set its own agenda in terms of motions for debate and votes. This has made the House of Commons far more relevant to the concerns of voters. It has on occasion put an issue on the order paper for a vote of the House which neither of the main front benches considers convenient, yet which has been at the forefront of voters’ concerns. This has been greeted by all the media as a revival of the House of Commons, and has made it more relevant to voters in our constituencies. I appreciate that this has created challenges for the government, but that is the best reason for the House to be vigilant about protecting the crucial gain with the BBBC represents in democratic accountability, and the ability for MPs to represent their voters and their interests. The House should be very concerned that the government a seeming to pre-empt the findings of your inquiry by tabling changes to the way that the BBBC is elected, before you have concluded your inquiry. I would urge the Committee should make it clear that whatever is decided on Monday 12th has not predetermined the outcome of your inquiry, and that you will express in the strongest possible terms that you object to the way the Government to have sought to pre-empt your findings, particularly since the coalition is applying a three-line whip to votes on Monday’s proceedings. Both the coalition parties made great play of supporting the Wright Committee proposals and to the strengthening of Parliament before the election. The Prime Minister as Leader of the Opposition also talked of reducing the role of whipping of committees. The Government should be congratulated for allowing the BBBC to be established. Monday’s business seems to fly in the face of these laudable intentions and commitments. 1. Composition of the Committee There should be no change in the method of election of members of the Committee, as is proposed at the time of writing. This may be decided by the House on Monday 12 March. This change contradicts what the Wright Committee intended, and strengthens the authority of the Committee. At the time of writing, it remains possible for members of the opposition parties to vote in the selection of members of the governing party, and vice versa. This ensures that BBBC is genuinely representative of all backbenchers. It was never intended that BBBC should be representative of party caucuses, where issues are brokered between party groups. The present method is more likely to elect genuinely independent parliamentarians, who are working together for the good of the House and in the national interest. The great success of the BBBC has been to take the House of Commons out of the party political ghetto and to raise issues for debate and a vote on the floor of the house of genuine national concern. The alternative system, as proposed in the amendment to Standing Orders to be debated on Monday will lend itself more easily to the influence of the whips and of the party interests. MPs from the Opposition parties will not be able to vote for the more independent minded MPs on the other side. A concerted campaign by whips to get one or two particular members removed from BBBC would be more likely to succeed. Why else would the Leader of the House have tabled such an amendment, in advance of the findings of your committee, and subjected the amendment to a three line whip? Could it be that the government resent having to debate such popular matters as votes for prisoners and a referendum on the EU? This is exactly the mentality which invites contempt from the public about the way Parliament operates. 2. The Chair The present Chair of BBBC was not elected under a system which restricts the choice of Chair to a member of the opposition. It is therefore rather odd that it should be regarded as necessary to apply such a restriction. The present Chair’s authority is enhanced by the fact that she was chosen freely by the whole House, and this is of benefit to the authority of the Committee. The present Labour Chair defeated a Conservative rival, despite the Labour party having fewer MPs. This means she genuinely represents the majority of backbenchers. This is of course the same manner as by which the Speaker is selected, though the Speaker is also elected by frontbenchers. There is no logical argument for departing from this principle in the case of the BBBC Chair, whose role is far more analogous to that of the Speaker than to that of the more regular select committees. 3. The minority Parties It would be a mistake to regard the BBBC as a body to negotiate agreements between party representatives. It is therefore a mistake to regard it necessary that the minority parties should be represented. This would make the body larger and more cumbersome. This does place an obligation on the BBBC to serve the interests of minority parties, though they also get an allocation of time on opposition days. It is also the case that the BBBC is a “backbench” body, and sometimes it is hard to regard minority party MPs as “backbenchers”, because they operate as frontbench teams. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Ev w4 Procedure Committee: Evidence

4. Time available to BBBC The notional number of days allocated to BBBC has been taken out of debates which were previously allocated to ‘set piece’ days on issues such as foreign policy, defence, national days, International Women’s Day, pre-EU Council debates, etc. The fact that the BBBC has not allocated time for such debates reflects no more than the representations that the BBBC has received. However, this does create a very serious problem. It should be clearer in the remit of BBBC that they must have regard to the forthcoming events when allocating subjects for debate. At the same time, this places an obligation on the government to provide time for such debates to the BBBC in time for such debates to take place at a time relevant to the events in question (such as forthcoming EU council meetings). What is unacceptable is that the government business managers and the BBBC should be adopting adversarial positions. The result will be more debates granted under the SO 24 procedure, if neither the BBBC nor the government are allocating time for urgent matters which require debate. This would be no bad thing and your Committee should recommend this practice to Mr Speaker. That would also have the effect of encouraging the government and the BBBC to cooperate more in future. 5. Powers of the Committee I have no developed views about the specific powers of the Committee, except it has become obvious that there is an intrinsic unfairness in the way that the procedures of the House treat BBBC motions. Unlike on opposition days, when the opposition motion is effectively taken for debate unamended, so that the House divides first on the unamended motion, BBBC motions are not subject to this procedure. Mr Speaker has on occasion felt unable to accept amendments which he felt may have been inspired by government MPs, but this is not satisfactory. The procedure for opposition motions should apply to BBBC motions, so that the BBBC has the power to ensure that their unamended motion will be debated and voted on by the House. 8 March 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Defence Committee, House of Commons (P 247, 2010–12) The Defence Committee has no comments on the first matters on which the Procedure Committee has invited comments, or about the powers of the Backbench Business Committee. The Defence Committee is, however, concerned about the way in which the Backbench Business Committee (BBBC) allocates time for debates. Despite the BBBC having been given the five days which, under the old dispensation, were allocated to defence debates in the Chamber, and despite repeated requests by the Committee for a debate, there was no general defence debate in the Chamber between September 2010 and January 2012. The BBBC’s First Special Report suggested that for the first session at least it would honour the old allocation of days: The Committee intends to start from the presumption that—for the first session—we will continue to recommend debates on the same subjects listed in paragraph 6 above at appropriate times, provided there is sufficient support among Members for each such debate. We will then review the level of participation and adjust accordingly. (First Special Report paragraph 8) The BBBC also indicated that proceedings on backbench business generally may take different forms, such as: — Debate on a motion “That the House has considered the matter of x”, as for general debates in the House. — Debate on a substantive motion in the terms of an early day motion already tabled. — A more specific motion recommended by this Committee, for instance to approve certain recommendations of a select committee report or take note of a government publication. — No substantive motion, when a select committee report is presented, or perhaps when a minister is questioned on a recent written ministerial statement, statutory instrument or EU document. Between March and September 2011, the Chair and other Members of the Committee made several applications (the first oral and subsequent ones in person) for a defence debate in the Chamber. None was accepted. In the course of our meetings with the BBBC we received the impression that its Members were interested in motions on which the house might divide, rather than general debates or debates on ‘take note’ motions, though in the event a number of these motions were selected. While in fairness to the BBBC it had, at that stage, relatively little time at its disposal, the Committee’s general approach is typified by a letter from its Chair in which she said ‘the Committee is not opposed to having general debates on the floor of the House but inevitably must pay attention to requests for Members with wide support for debates on substantive Motions’ and suggesting that a debate in Westminster Hall would be just as satisfactory. We were told that our application would remain on the table. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w5

A debate was eventually granted, at a time when we had made no application, but in the event the full day was eroded by a ninety-minute topical debate on European matters. The topics actually selected for debate in the Chamber on those occasions the Defence Committee made an application have included: a general debate on social housing in London; a motion on the review of the Parliamentary Standards Act; a motion on fish discards and 2012 Common Agricultural Policy reform; a motion on the BBC World Service; a motion on rural broadband and mobile coverage; a motion on Eurozone financial assistance; a motion on congenital cardiac services for children, and a motion on wild animals in circuses. It is clear that the Committee is prepared to countenance general debates and, indeed, some of the motions were so anodyne as not to be likely to divide the House. All the subjects were worthy, but not all were urgent, and it is hard to see why they should trump matters as essential to the well-being of the UK as its defence at a time when its armed forces are engaged in operations in a variety of venues. It seems to us that the decisions of the Committee are too susceptible to being swayed by the campaign of the moment at the expense of matters which may not be so urgent but are equally important. We do not think it would be appropriate to debate defence matters in Westminster Hall, which would give the Armed Forces the idea that their concerns are of lesser importance. We would welcome some guidance to the BBBC making clear that it should make time for debate in the House on some subjects which are important but neither divisive nor urgently topical. We hope also that the rules governing the allocation of debates can be made clear to all Members. 2 March 2012

Written evidence submitted by Dr Meg Russell, Deputy Director, and Reader in British and Comparative Politics, The Constitution Unit, University College London (P 250, 2010–12) I am grateful for the opportunity provided by the Procedure Committee’s inquiry to make some comments on the operation of the Backbench Business Committee in the first session of its existence, 2010–12. I do so as an academic who has keenly studied parliament (and indeed other overseas parliaments) for the past 15 years, but also as someone with a particular interest in the Backbench Business Committee. I was the specialist adviser to the “Wright Committee” (Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons), which recommended the establishment of this committee. In turn, I was appointed to that position partly because I had conducted a comparative research study on how the Commons’ control of its own agenda could be enhanced, which ended with a report published in 2007.(1) This was the first report to recommend establishment of a Backbench Business Committee.

General Remarks It is perhaps worth beginning with a very general comment, that I believe the Backbench Business Committee has been a success. The original intention in creating such a committee—both in my 2007 report and the report of the Wright Committee—was to give MPs a greater sense of ownership of the Commons’ agenda, and to facilitate discussion of those issues which they considered most important, while not intruding on the government’s ability to get its business discussed. The Committee had a challenging task: based on fairly limited guidance in the Wright Committee report on how to allocate time, to construct procedures which members believed to be fair, and backbench time which was distinctly non-partisan. As with any new body in a complex environment, there have of course been some teething problems. But I believe that through the hard work of the committee’s clerks and its first chair, it has established a good reputation amongst members, facilitated debates on various important issues, and in doing so raised the public profile of parliament and interest in its debates. All of these are important achievements.

The Allocation of Time To turn to the specifics of the Procedure Committee’s inquiry, one of the most tricky issues in this first session has been the allocation of time, both to the Backbench Business Committee and by the committee. There are various issues within this wider question, only some of which I touch on here. The particularly vexed question of petitions is dealt with separately below. One difficulty has been the lack of certainty about the timing of backbench time. Although the amount of time is specified (and broadly correct, I believe: but see petitions below), it is difficult for the committee or individual members to plan properly, when they only learn at short notice which timeslots have been allocated by the government whips. On this question of how time is allocated to the committee, the Wright Committee set out several options.(2) One of these was the “minimum ration of days through the year” which now applies, based on the model for opposition days. But the committee’s preference was instead for a “foreseeable weekday every week”, which it described as the “simplest and probably most transparent way of ensuring sufficient time for backbench business spread evenly throughout a session”. This was also the proposal set out in my original 2007 report. Indeed the Wright Committee proposed that there should be greater control given to the opposition over the timing of its own days, thereby further indicating that the model of opposition days was not a good cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Ev w6 Procedure Committee: Evidence

one, as it left too much control over allocation of time in the hands of government whips.(3) The easiest way to provide more certainty both for the opposition and the Backbench Business Committee would be for allocated days to be set out at the start of a session, as applies to private Members’ Fridays. If this were considered overly rigid, the option would always remain for occasional changes to be made via a business statement.(4) But it does appear somewhat inappropriate that the government should retain control over when opposition and backbench business are scheduled, as is currently the case. There have also been some tensions regarding how time is allocated by the Backbench Business Committee, particularly with respect to certain “set piece” debates. While there are clearly sensitivities about certain “established” debates being dropped, or allocated less time, it was always the intention of the Wright Committee that the Backbench Business Committee should have flexibility in the use of its time, and in particular that it should be responsive to the strength of feeling amongst members. I believe that the consultation sessions that the Committee has established have served its purpose well, and that compromise arrangements such as this week’s short debate on International Women’s Day can help to ease such tensions. The Wright Committee was keen that the Backbench Business Committee should be able to experiment with different forms of short debate to meet demand, which it has done to some extent. Further such experimentation should be encouraged. But at the end of the day it has to be accepted by all parties that there is limited time available, and some Members will inevitably be disappointed. I believe that the Committee has come as close as possible within these constraints to being fair, and that most Members appreciate this.

Petitions A particular source of tension has been the Government’s decision to establish e-petitions, and to state that these will be considered by the Backbench Business Committee for debate when they reach 100,000 signatures. The Procedure Committee has already stated quite clearly some of the problems with this system.(5) In short, the Government introduced it without any consultation with parliament, and certainly without any debate or decision by the Commons on these petitions being considered backbench business. By definition, then, it seems to me that they are not backbench business: if they are business which Government wishes to programme, and on which there has been no consultation with parliament, they must surely be government business! The purpose of establishing a ringfenced quantity of backbench business was to ensure that there were certain periods of time which belonged to backbenchers (as represented by the Backbench Business Committee), onto which Government could not encroach. While government e-petitions clearly originate with the public, the government’s decision to forward them to the Backbench Business Committee can be seen as just such an encroachment and is therefore inappropriate. The Procedure Committee has already made recommendations about the wording of the Government’s website, and the need for additional time in Westminster Hall for debate. I strongly support these recommendations. As your Committee has stated “it is not appropriate for a project devised by the Executive, and on which the House has never been asked to take a decision, to eat into the time allocated for debates requested by backbenchers”.(6)

The Selection of Members The Wright Committee proposed that members of the Backbench Business Committee should be elected in an all-House secret ballot, and this proposal is now enshrined in standing orders. I understand that one change under consideration is whether the all-House ballot should be changed, to election within party groups. I believe that such a change is unnecessary, and would be very much contrary to the spirit of what the Wright Committee proposed. The Backbench Business Committee is not a forum for negotiation between representatives of political parties, but instead a body which represents the House as a whole. It is appropriate that those who are elected to it should have support across the whole Chamber. I am aware that there is some concern about the representativeness of the first members of the Committee, which is not a matter that I would wish to comment upon. But it is important to point out that in two of the three parties these positions were uncontested, so any concern about the makeup of the Committee can certainly not be blamed on the electoral system. The fear is that somehow votes in one party could be marshalled to ensure the election of “extreme” candidates in another: for example through opposition votes amassing to mischievously elect “offside” government backbenchers and inflict discomfort on the government. I believe that these threats are greatly exaggerated, and if the Wright committee’s analysis had been that they were serious it would surely not have recommend all-House elections. These fears depend on an assumption that party whips can overwhelmingly control their members’ votes in a secret ballot, and thereby persuade members to vote against the “best” candidates who will represent the whole House, and instead engage in a partisan game. I believe that MPs on all sides of the House are both more independent and more sensible than that. If there are strong candidates on the ballot paper who have genuine cross-party appeal, they will be elected. Until there is any evidence to the contrary, I thus suggest that it would be wrong to change the (as yet untested) electoral system put forward by the Wright Committee. [I have gathered since this evidence was first drafted that the Government have put down amendments to Standing Orders to make this change already, before the Procedure Committee has been able to consider the evidence and report. I am surprised by this, and it seems quite inappropriate in procedural terms, as well as wrong in substance.] cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w7

Minority Parties Another controversial question has concerned whether there should be a representative (or representatives) of the minority parties on the Backbench Business Committee. This is a difficult question, but once again I would recommend the maintenance of the status quo. The minority parties make up only a very small section of the House, and to represent them proportionately (even with one member) would require the Backbench Business Committee to be made significantly larger, which would risk undermining its effectiveness and collegiality. Furthermore, there is a basic question about whether those from the minority parties are actually “backbenchers” or “frontbenchers”. In fact, as these parties are so small, members almost invariably serve on the frontbench. But the Backbench Business Committee exists to programme backbench business, and is absolutely not intended to work as a forum for negotiation between the parties. Plus, of course, the minor parties already have their allocation of opposition days. Of course, if there are minor party representatives (or independents) who definitely do not have any frontbench responsibilities, it might be considered unfair that they are excluded from standing for election to the Committee. In this case, members in this special category might perhaps be allowed to count against the quota for the Liberal Democrats, or the Official Opposition. Of course to be elected, they would require support across the House.

The Chair

The Procedure Committee’s consultation specifically refers to the possibility that the chair of the Backbench Business Committee might be reserved for an opposition member. For similar reasons to those already set out above, I do not believe that this change is necessary or appropriate. The chair of the Backbench Business Committee should be a member who can maximise cross-party support across the House. There should be a genuine sense that he or she is can speak for the entire Chamber. While such candidates will often be found in opposition parties, they can also often be found in the governing party itself. In the previous Parliament, examples might include Tony Wright or Chris Mullin. I think it is undesirable to rule out such candidates, and therefore unnecessary to add restrictions here.

[Again, I have gathered since this evidence was first drafted that the Government have put down amendments to standing orders to make this change already, before the Procedure Committee has been able to consider the evidence and report. I am surprised by this, and it seems quite inappropriate in procedural terms, as well as wrong in substance.]

A Future House Business Committee

An entirely separate matter, which is not included within the remit of the current inquiry is the question of creating a House Business Committee, as recommended by the Wright Committee and agreed at the end of the last parliament. I imagine that there may be separate consultations on this matter at a future date. But it is perhaps worth adding that it would in my view be wholly undesirable for there to be some kind of “merging” of the functions of the Backbench Business Committee with a future House Business Committee. Reasons for this were set out by the Wright Committee, and also in my 2007 report. The Backbench Business Committee has made a good start in carving out time for backbenchers in the chamber, which is clearly distinct from time set aside for government business. A merging of responsibilities would blur these lines, returning to something more like the status quo ante before the Backbench Business Committee was created. Whatever decisions are taken in the future about the House Business Committee, the Backbench Business Committee must be allowed to retain its integrity and independent existence. March 2012

References

(1) M. Russell and A. Paun (2007), The House Rules? International lessons for enhancing the autonomy of the House of Commons (London: Constitution Unit). Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/publications/tabs/unit-publications/142.pdf

(2) Reform of the House of Commons Select Committee, Rebuilding the House, First Report of Session 2008–09 (London: HMSO), paragraphs 211–216.

(3) Ibid, paragraph 188.

(4) Indeed this arrangement was suggested by the Wright Committee to avoid undue rigidity (ibid, paragraph 208).

(5) House of Commons Procedure Committee, Debates on Government E-petitions, Seventh Report of Session 2010–12 (London: TSO).

(6) Ibid, paragraph 12. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Ev w8 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by John Hemming MP (P 259, 2010–12) Introduction In this memorandum I put forward some suggestions for consideration by the Procedure Committee in its review of the Backbench Business Committee. Most of these proposals relate to technical changes which would assist the Committee in performing its functions, based on the experience of the first session of its operation. These have been discussed in the Committee as and when we have confronted various challenges as we go along.

Summary The demand for debates in backbench time looks likely to continue to exceed supply. The allocation needs to be used as effectively and efficiently as possible. In this memorandum we invite the Procedure Committee to consider a number of possible changes to the current arrangements for backbench business.

Time for backbench business The Procedure Committee is invited to consider: — ways to facilitate better forward planning of the parliamentary calendar to provide predictable allocations of days to backbench business; — whether some of the traditional set-piece debates, for example on defence and security and on foreign affairs including pre-European Council debates are appropriately allocated as backbench business; and — whether there could be a system of “repaying” time taken out of backbench business by ministerial statements.

General powers of the Committee The Procedure Committee is invited to consider whether: — the Backbench Business Committee’s practice of holding public sittings at which Members put forward their proposals for debates should be formalised in Standing Orders; — the Committee should have power (and be implicitly required) to report to the House on the way it goes about its task; and — the Backbench Business Committee should be given power to propose business motions regulating the timing of debates at the sittings it controls.

Types of backbench business The Procedure Committee is invited to consider: — whether the Backbench Business Committee should have a power in Standing Orders to schedule select committee statements; — whether the Committee should have power to schedule debates on motions to annul statutory instruments subject to negative resolution procedure; — whether there is a need to clarify in Standing Orders that debates arising on reports from the Standards and Privileges Committee are not backbench business; and — to what extent our successors should be encouraged to continue to experiment with new forms of proceedings which could meet demand in ways not currently encompassed by traditional ways of conducting our business.

Westminster Hall — The Procedure Committee is invited to consider whether changes to Standing Orders are needed to facilitate more imaginative use of sittings in Westminster Hall, and to reinforce its status as an equal debating Chamber.

1. Time Available for Backbench Business The Committee intends to set out in some detail the problems it has faced in scheduling backbench business in this session in its “end of term” report. Within the scope of the current parliamentary calendar the 35 day allocation is unlikely to be substantially extended.

Predictability The main problem we have faced in this session is the unpredictability of when we will have time to allocate. To avoid the problems of an uneven distribution of backbench time, it would be possible to set aside a particular day or part-day for backbench business each week. This would have the advantage of predictability and would cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w9

enable the Committee to plan ahead when scheduling debates. Alternative approaches might include naming the days for backbench business in a motion agreed at the start of the Session, in the same way the House does for private Members’ bill Fridays. The House could be invited to consider and decide on this suggestion as part of the review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee. There could be a more flexible approach from the Government to the scheduling of business on its days. Where it is clear that business is likely to finish early, it should be possible to make provision for a short, topical debate or three-hour debate to be allocated by the Backbench Business Committee. In any event, I would hope that the successor Committee in the new session will meet the Leader of the House and government whips at an early stage to discuss whether a mechanism could be established to allow backbench business to be timetabled in a more strategic way—at least a term ahead if possible.

“Set-piece debates” Our experience in this session has made it clear to us that seeking to schedule all the traditional “set-piece” debates (five defence debates, the St David’s day debate, the International Women’s Day debate, the pre- European Council debates and so forth) in backbench time would be a failure to recognise the wishes of Members for time to debate many other matters. In my view there is a strong case for arguing that the defence debates, the pre-European Council debates and the debates on the Intelligence and Security Committee (at least unless and until it becomes a House committee) are more appropriately considered in government time, if they are to be ring-fenced as immutable requirements. It might be helpful if the Procedure Committee offered its own view on this issue.

E-petitions I agree that time for the debate of e-petitions should not come out of our existing allocation of backbench time. This possibility was not envisaged when the Committee was established and did not form part of the calculations made to determine the allocation of backbench time agreed by the House at that date. The proposals of the Procedure Committee for the creation of additional, ring-fenced time for debate of e-petitions is therefore to be welcomed. This would not preclude Members from continuing to apply to the Backbench Business Committee for debate of a subject connected to an e-petition in the Chamber. The Committee could continue to consider subjects on their merits and according to the criteria it has set out, and some such subjects may still lead to debates and potentially votes on a substantive motion rather than having a general debate.

Ministerial statements The time available for backbench business is scarce relative to demand, and inelastic. The Government has chosen to make ministerial statements at the end of question time on several days on which backbench business has been scheduled. A statement can take up to an hour or more out of the day’s business. Since backbench business has been preponderantly scheduled for Thursdays, there is regularly 45 minutes or an hour taken out of those days by the Business Question, even when there are no other statements. It is recognised that statements are valued by backbenchers as well as the opposition, and the Speaker has laid considerable emphasis on the importance of major announcements being made to the House before they are made to the media. It would be impractical to insist that ministerial statements are only made on days when government business is to follow. However, given the pressure on backbench time, the Procedure Committee may wish to consider whether the time taken by statements should be returned to the Backbench Business Committee in the form of additional days and half-days equivalent to the accumulated time taken by statements on backbench days.

2. Powers to Receive Written and Oral Submissions from Members Unlike departmental select committees, when the Backbench Business Committee was established its Standing Orders did not include a power to send for persons, papers and records. This power forms the basis on which select committees take formal written and oral evidence. It was perhaps not envisaged that a committee dealing largely with the scheduling of business would have a need to meet in public. However, you will be aware that the Committee has introduced a system of public meetings at which Members of the House come and put to us in public their proposals for matters to be debated in backbench time. These public meetings have become an important element of the transparent way in which we operate, enabling backbench Members to make public representations and the public to know which subjects have been proposed. To date, these public sessions have not had the same procedural status as the evidence sessions held by other select committees and, whilst this has not severely hindered our work, I would suggest that the opportunity provided by the review of the Committee should be taken to rectify an anomaly and provide us with an explicit power to hold public hearings. This could be either the general power “to call for persons, papers or records”, or a more restricted power. That more restricted power could be achieved by amending paragraph (6) of SO No 152J as follows: (6) The committee shall have power to invite Government officials to attend all or part of any of its meetings and to receive submissions from Members of the House orally or in writing. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Ev w10 Procedure Committee: Evidence

3. Power to Make Reports The Committee was not given the usual power of a select committee to report from time to time. This has meant that we have had to use the slightly cumbersome system of making special reports. I do not envisage that the Committee would make any extensive use of this power, but it should be free to report to the House on any matter concerning its work and should be encouraged regularly to report on its activities so that it may be held to account by the House for the discharge of its functions. I invite the Procedure Committee to give consideration to adding a new paragraph to SO No 152J as follows: (8) The Committee shall have power to report from time to time on matters relating to the determination of backbench business.

4. Business Motions The Committee has regularly split debates on a full day in the main Chamber into two separate topics, and have sometimes recommended the duration of each debate. More recently, its practice has more often been to allow the Speaker and his deputies to steer the timings with regard to the number of Members who have applied to speak in each debate, and this has generally worked well. However, I believe that a power in Standing Orders for a member of the Backbench Business Committee to move a motion forthwith at the start of backbench business to regulate the timing of subsequent debates would be a useful reserve power, and might assist the House in general by giving a predictable time for the start and finish of debates. A good example of when this would have been useful is the debate on Monday 12 March at which the Standing Orders relating to the Backbench Business Committee were debated and changed, along with several other unrelated and less controversial changes. If this had been a backbench day, it is likely that debate on the first set of changes might have taken the whole day, and crowded out all other debates. This restriction means that complex questions such as those cannot effectively be decided on backbench days. I recognise, however, that a power to suspend the operation of the moment of interruption (beyond allowing for divisions on complicated questions to take place at the end of a debate) would be likely to be unacceptable. I therefore invite the Procedure Committee to give consideration to introducing a new paragraph (4A) in SO No 9 along the following lines: (4A) If a notice of motion in the name of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee stands upon the Order Paper at the commencement of public business at any sitting too which the provisions of paragraph (3A) of Standing Order No 14 apply, to the effect that any specified business may be proceeded with at that day’s sitting though opposed— (a) until a specified hour (being no later than the moment of interruption specified in paragraph (3) of this order); or (b) until either a specified hour (being no later than the moment of interruption specified in paragraph (3) of this order) or until the end of a specified period after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later (but no later than the moment of interruption specified in paragraph (3) of this order); or in a form combining any or all of these effects in respect of different items of business, if the motion is moved by a member of the Backbench Business Committee the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from a Member who opposes any such motion respectively, shall put the question on that motion.

5. Backbench Statements The Committee has experimented with allocating time for the chair of a select committee to introduce a report published by that committee on the floor of the House in a form of “mini-statement”. I consider that this has proved to be a successful innovation, helping to highlight and promote the work of select committees. But the “statements” the Committee has scheduled have not taken place under the same procedural mechanism as ministerial statements, since the Committee has no power to timetable this type of business. Instead, the Chair of the Committee has moved a “take note” motion on the subject of the publication of their report, taking interventions as necessary and sitting down after 20 minutes. Whilst this improvised procedure has served its purpose, it would be neater and clearer to members and others if the Procedure Committee recommended that the Backbench Business Committee had power to schedule select committee “statements” in standing orders. I would hope that this would be done in such a way as to enable them to be scheduled on days when backbench business is not to follow. The possibility was canvassed by the Wright Committee of allotting some of the existing “ten-minute rule” slots (one at the commencement of public business on each sitting Tuesday and Wednesday) to select committee chairs to introduce reports or having equivalent slots on Mondays and Thursdays.1 The power established under the Standing Order should also enable the committee to vary their length (for example, 30 minutes might be a more appropriate time limit for a very popular topic), and should not constrain the committee in respect of the choice of report. I also believe that the power could usefully be sufficiently flexible to allow it to be used for statements by committee chairs on matters other than the publication of a report (for example, the launch of an inquiry). 1 Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, First Report of Session 2008–09, Rebuilding the House, HC 1117, paragraph 221. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w11

6. Prayers against Statutory Instruments The implicit presumption in the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 is that motions to annul negative procedure instruments will be debated by the House if such a debate is sought by a Member. But successive Governments have honoured this constitutional presumption more in the breach than the observance. Official Opposition “prayers”2 are usually debated either on the floor of the House or (more usually nowadays) in a Delegated Legislation committee. But the chances of an ordinary backbench Member or group of Members securing such a debate are slim. This issue was raised but not clearly answered by the Wright Committee, which questioned whether such a situation was in accord with the spirit of the new category of backbench business. It noted in its first report that only two prayers against statutory instruments were taken on the floor of the House in 2008–09. It commented: Such business is scheduled by Government in response to demand and arises out of ministerial actions, but is not in fact initiated by Ministers, nor is the relevant motion moved by them.3 In its second report, the Wright Committee added: Motions seeking to annul secondary legislation … are implicitly included in the category of government business in the draft Standing Order. That would not rule out the possibility of the Backbench Business Committee allowing a prayer in backbench time …4 “Backbench business” is now defined in SO No 14(3C), largely by defining what is not within the category. Under sub-paragraph (a) of that paragraph government business is defined. The definition—largely uncontroversial—includes “proceedings under any Act of Parliament”. This covers mainly proceedings relating to statutory instruments. So far as affirmative procedure SIs are concerned, there seems no grounds to quarrel that those are ministerial business. But it appears to me that the definition is widely enough drawn to also cover “prayers” against negative procedure instruments, contrary to the conclusion of the Wright Committee with reference to those same words. I agree with the Wright Committee that motions to annul statutory instruments do not fall into any intuitive definition of government business, and invite the Procedure Committee to consider whether any change to SO No 14(3C) is needed to put beyond doubt the power of the Backbench Business Committee to schedule such debates on the floor. I would also invite the Procedure Committee to consider whether it should be open to the Backbench Business Committee to give time for motions to refer instruments subject to negative resolution procedure to a committee and be able to put motions relating to negative procedure instruments which have been reported from a committee for decision forthwith on the floor of the House. I would not expect any of these things to happen frequently, but the possibility of their doing so on the initiative of backbenchers could, we believe, be an important reassertion of accountability of ministers to Parliament for the delegated legislation they make. I invite the Procedure Committee to give consideration to making the following amendments to Standing Orders: Standing Order No 14 Paragraph (3C)(a) to read (changes shown in italics): (a) government business, that is proceedings relating to government bills, financial business, proceedings under any Act of Parliament (except proceedings to which Standing Order No 17 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure) applies), or relating to European Union Documents, or any other motion in the name of a Minister of the Crown; Standing Order No 118 Insert a new paragraph (4A) as follows: (4A) Where a Member has given notice of a motion to which paragraph (4)(a) of this order applies, that Member may, at the commencement of public business on a day on which backbench business has precedence, make a motion that the instrument be referred to such a committee; and the Question on that motion shall be put forthwith. In paragraph (6), replace “(3) and (4)” with “(3) to (4A)”.

7. Other New Forms of Proceeding The Wright Committee suggested that the Backbench Business Committee might look at other innovative forms of proceedings, including for example: short speeches of say 10 minutes each at the beginning of proceedings (either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall) not requiring a ministerial reply, or a series of three-minute “constituency statements” at the start of a day’s business. Other events might include, for example, short debates on topics on the floor of the House, lasting say thirty or forty-five minutes or an hour, fitted around other business including government business; or sessions modelled on ministerial statements but on topics chosen by backbenchers, where a minister makes an opening statement on the topic and then responds 2 So called because the usual form of the motion is “That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the so- and-so Regulations … be annulled”. 3 Select Committee on House of Commons Reform, First Report of Session 2008–09, HC 1117, paragraph 135. 4 Select Committee on House of Commons Reform, First Report of Session 2009–10, HC 372, paragraph 13. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Ev w12 Procedure Committee: Evidence

to a series of questions from the floor for an hour in total. This could even be tried in relation to responses to petitions. It is might also be possible to hold sessions where backbench holders of internal positions such as the Chairs of internal select committees or the other governance bodies of the House are exposed to this kind of cross-examination. I would invite the Procedure Committee to consider whether to encourage further innovation in the types of proceedings used by the Backbench Business Committee, and whether any changes to Standing Orders would be necessary to facilitate them.

8. Westminster Hall It is nearly 10 years since the establishment of sittings in Westminster Hall as a fixed feature of the House. They have generally been backbench time, the more so since the Backbench Business Committee was given the duty of allocating Thursday afternoon three-hour sittings in partnership with the Liaison Committee.

Raising the status of sittings in Westminster Hall Those who come to the Committee with topics for debate, however, often appear to regard a debate in Westminster Hall as a second best. I invite the Procedure Committee to give consideration to steps that might be taken to reinforce the status of sittings in Westminster Hall in the eyes of backbenchers, and to emphasise their equal procedural status with sittings in the main Chamber. There are some small “tweaks” to the Standing Orders relating to Westminster Hall which I believe would assist in achieving this.

Substantive motions in Westminster Hall Standing Order No 10 governs proceedings in Westminster Hall. There is a general perception that such proceedings are confined to adjournment debates moved (even if only formally) by a minister. However, paragraph (3) of the Standing Order says that the business taken in Westminster Hall “shall be such as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint”, and does not limit it to adjournment motions. There are two constraints or protections on such other business. First, paragraph (9) of the Standing Order provides that if, at the end of a debate, when a question is put for decision, the opinion of the chair as to the decision is challenged, the question is not decided and the chair shall report the motion to the House where it may be put for decision forthwith. Second, paragraph (10) of the Standing Order provides that if the business at a sitting in Westminster Hall is anything other than an adjournment motion, six Members rising in their place may cause those proceedings to be terminated immediately. The first of these constraints, designed to avoid any division taking place at a sitting in Westminster Hall seems appropriate. However, the second appears to me to be an excessive constraint: some business could be appointed for such a sitting and the whole sitting could be aborted by six Members without notice, causing the whole sitting to be wasted (as there would be no opportunity for other business to be immediately scheduled). Looking more closely at paragraph (10), it may appear that it was defectively drafted: it seems to have been intended to allow the vetoing of the use of a sitting in Westminster Hall to be used for an “order of the day” (that is for all practical purposes some stage of a bill) to be taken there against the wishes of a minority. I invite the Procedure Committee to consider whether Westminster Hall could be better utilised if the Backbench Business Committee were able, with the consent of the Chairman of Ways and Means, to schedule a substantive motion for debate. Such motions could only be agreed by unanimous consent. I therefore invite the Procedure Committee to consider an amendment to paragraph (10) of Standing Order No 10, either to omit it completely or to restrict it to proceedings arising under paragraph (7) of the Standing Order. Paragraph (7) of the Standing Order provides for a Minister to move a motion (only with the leave of the House) that an order of the day might be proceeded with at a sitting in Westminster Hall. The provision has never been used. Following the other changes to the standing order it appears to me that the restriction of this power to ministers looks anomalous, and indeed obsolete. I invite the Procedure Committee to consider whether paragraph (7) of SO No 10 should be amended either to extend the power to move a motion for the referral of an order of the day to Westminster Hall to Members acting on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, or to remove it.

Other types of business in Westminster Hall Paragraph (3) of Standing Order No 10 provides for the Chairman of Ways and Means to allow question times in Westminster Hall, under arrangements determined by him. I would invite the Procedure Committee to consider whether some innovative uses of the power to hold question times in Westminster Hall might be negotiated with the Chairman of Ways and Means to experiment with some form of backbench-driven question times. I note that the standing order does not restrict these arrangements to questions to Ministers.

9. Reports from the Committee on Standards It has been disputed territory whether motions relating to reports from the Committee on Standards and Privileges are backbench business. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee tabled an amendment to cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w13

the motion to split the Standards and Privileges Committee into the Committee on Standards and the Committee of Privileges which the House agreed on 12 March. Its effect would have been to clarify that motions relating to the conduct of Members of the House, following an investigation of a complaint by the Commissioner for Standards and a report from what will in future be the Committee on Standards, are not backbench business. In my view, it is neither sensible or appropriate for motions of this kind to be taken in backbench time. This is because: — Such motions need to be dealt with promptly. The Backbench Business Committee may well not have time available at short notice. — The time taken for debate of such motions is unpredictable. Most are dealt with very briefly by the House. It is much simpler for the Government to deal with this kind of unpredictability, since they can regulate the timing of business at a sitting in a way the Backbench Business Committee cannot. It would be silly for that Committee to allocate a portion of one of its days to a debate on such a motion which might be over and done within a few minutes but could potentially absorb a whole day. — These motions are not discretionary. The Committee could not—and should not—be choosing whether or not such a debate should be held. The debate has to be held, and natural justice requires that it should be held quickly. The Backbench Business Committee has no proper role in weighing whether such a debate should be given time against other competing demands on the time at its disposal. I therefore invite the Procedure Committee to consider the following change to sub-paragraph (3C)(f) of Standing Order No 14 (the proposed change is shown in italics): (f) business set down at the direction of, or given precedence by, the Speaker, or arising from a report from the Committee on Standards. March 2012

Written evidence submitted by Caroline Lucas MP (P 263, 2010–12) I am very glad that the Procedure Committee is undertaking this inquiry. I would like to begin by saying that the current chair of the Backbench Business Committee should be congratulated for her good practice of holding open sessions and for her respect for the minority parties. However, good stewardship under a particular chair is not an adequate substitute for a fair structure and healthy processes.

Issues relating to Membership of the Committee—Representation of the Smaller Parties One of the real strengths of the Backbench Business Committee is its potential to transcend the whips and to give time to the concerns of backbenchers. It is therefore deeply disappointing, and out of step with the main purpose of the Committee, that the smaller parties are excluded from full membership. That is why I backed the amendments by the chair of the Backbench Business Committee that were tabled for the debate in the Chamber last month, on 12 March. As the Committee will know, the amendments sought to give the minority parties a full membership place that would be voted for amongst minority parties; one person who would have to re-stand in the same way that other parties do. Sadly these amendments were defeated and we are left with the Government proposals for a member with ‘observer status’ with no voting rights. This is not justifiable. I am aware that some have argued that, as the Committee rarely votes in practice, observer status would mean that smaller parties had some representation and that being unable to vote doesn’t matter that much. This is not an argument for denying the smaller parties proper status on the Committee, just an observation that under the stewardship of the current chair, votes don’t happen very often. On the rare occasions that votes do happen, the smaller parties should have a say if the Committee is to be properly representative of all backbenchers. This is not just another select committee of the House where the arithmetic makes exclusion reasonable. The Backbench Business Committee is meant to be a Committee of Members acting for other Members, and it is for this reason that smaller parties should have a vote.

Oral Evidence As the Committee will be aware from the debate on these matters last month on 12 March, Pete Wishart has taken a particular interest in the issue of membership of smaller parties. He rightly stated in that debate that we cannot have a Backbench Business Committee of some of the House; it must be a Backbench Business cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Ev w14 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Committee of the whole House.(1) I know that Pete is keen to give evidence to your inquiry on behalf of the smaller parties and I very much hope that there will be an opportunity for him to do so.

Amount of Time Available to the Committee and the Way the Government Allocates that Time There are not enough days for BBCom business. In particular, it is clear that the demands placed on BBCom time by the new e-petitions system wasn’t accounted for in the 35 days that the Committee is allocated. That additional demand should be assessed and more time found. It would be beneficial for Members for there to be a clearer pattern of allocation of BBCom time. My understanding is that under the current system, the decision about when to allocate the 35 days of BBCom time is entirely within the Government’s gift. It would be healthier for there to be more structure imposed by the House on this allocation. I would be interested in seeing a pilot whereby the default practice is for Thursdays to be set as a BBCom day, allowing for some flexibility for Government to schedule its own business in exceptional circumstances that should be explained to the House. Under the current arrangements, theoretically we could go for weeks without any BBCom debate and Government could, if it wishes, then squeeze BBCom time in clusters.

The Process by which the Committee Determines the Matters to be Debated in Backbench Time Open public sessions where backbenchers make pitches to the BBCom should not just be good practice but mandatory to ensure that this practice continues into the future. Furthermore, I would be interested in the Procedure Committee’s views on whether the actual decision making sessions of the Committee should be transcribed, so that people can actually read, understand and scrutinise the decision-making of the Committee itself. I am of course aware that, as a rule, select committees deliberate in private to allow free and frank discussion. I support this approach for departmental select committees, as I think without it you would, for example, risk people meeting in cliques outside of committee proceedings in order to have those free and frank discussions. However, it can be argued that the Backbench Business Committee is different, as it is taking actual decisions that have an actual outcome—time or no time. Unlike other select committees, the BBCom is not deliberating on policy and simply making recommendations about what should be done, it is deciding things, and my feeling is that these decisions should at least be transcribed. Being able to see how the decisions about time are arrived at by Committee members would, I think, be a healthy addition to the process. I should, therefore, be very interested in the Committee’s thoughts on whether backbenchers and the public should be able to attend or at least read a transcript of the Committee’s deliberations on the pitches made to them by backbenchers. April 2012

Reference (1) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120312/debtext/120312–0002.htm# 12031215000742

Written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Elfyn Llwyd MP (P 02, 2012–13) I know that my colleagues in the Scottish National Party share my concerns about issues linked to the membership of the Committee, and indeed other minority parties, namely the Democratic Unionist Party and the SDLP are also concerned. I am disappointed because I raised the matter during the sittings of the Wright Committee and I believe that I was making strong representation then, the procedures are as such that they will effectively “lock out” minority membership and that surely in the context of Backbench Business is completely and utterly wrong. As regards the amount of time available to the Committee it seems very reasonable to be, but I do believe that the Committee should make the annual Welsh Day a Standing Order as it were, as it has been for the last century. As far as the powers and the process by which the Committee determines the matters to be debated—I have appeared before the Committee two or three times and I have found the whole thing to be quite reasonable and totally acceptable. 13 April 2012 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w15

Written evidence submitted by the Liaison Committee (P 05, 2012–13) Launching Select Committee Reports on the Floor of the House I am writing to you in connection with the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into the operation of the Backbench Business Committee (BBCom) on the matter of arrangements to enable Chairs of committees to introduce reports on the floor of the House. Under the current provisions, BBCom can only schedule debates on motions. It cannot provide time for the chair of a committee to present a report to the House by way of an oral statement. This has meant that the chair presenting a report has had to make a speech, formally moving a motion, That the House has considered the particular report, and take interventions from Members wishing to ask questions about it. This is widely recognised to be an unsatisfactory procedure. Indeed the Leader of the House wrote to Natascha Engel and me in June 2011 suggesting that “the House might be better served ... by a procedure which is more obviously akin to a ministerial statement, which I believe would both raise the status of these proceedings, by giving select committees more access to the Chamber as of right, and provide greater certainty about their format and duration”. I welcome Sir George’s commitment to providing select committee chairs with a right of access to the floor of the House to present their reports under a procedure designed for that purpose. In subsequent correspondence we reached agreement on all elements of a draft Standing Order proposed by the Leader of the House save one. Sir George insisted that a) reports should be presented only on the day of publication and b) statements presenting them could be made only on days allocated to backbench business. Taken together with the Government’s approach to scheduling backbench business, these requirements make the proposition impracticable for select committees faced with the need to plan their publication schedules to take account both of the committee’s consideration of the draft report and the requirements of the House’s publisher. I have consulted my colleagues on the Liaison Committee. We are sympathetic to Sir George’s argument that ‘the aims of my proposal are to enhance the relevance of proceedings to the wider political agenda of the day’ and that therefore statements presenting reports should take place only on the day of publication [letter of 13 September 2011]. The necessary consequence is that it should be possible for BBCom to schedule such statements on any sitting day. We accept that, if this is to be the case, there should be a time limit and it should be possible for the Government to recoup the time taken by such statements from the allocation of backbench business time. I attach a draft Standing Order for your committee’s consideration which we believe meets these points. Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP Chair May 2012

Draft Standing Order Select committee statements 1. The Backbench Business Committee may determine that a statement may be made on a select committee report. 2. A statement under this order— (a) may be made on any sitting day; (b) shall take place after the time for questions and ministerial statements; (c) shall be made by the chair of a select committee or another member of a committee acting on its behalf; (d) may take place only on the day on which the report is published. 3. No more than one such statement shall be made on any day, unless that day is one on which backbench business has precedence. 4. The Member making a statement may answer questions put by other Members called by the Speaker, but no question shall be taken after the end of a period determined by the Backbench Business Committee, which shall be no more than 20 minutes from the commencement of the statement, or 30 minutes on a day on which backbench business has precedence. Amendments to SO No 14: Line 54 leave out “and” Line 54, at end insert, “and every four select committee statements shall count as one quarter- day.” cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Ev w16 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Naomi Long MP, Alliance Party Deputy Leader (P 12, 2012–13) As you may be aware, I am in the rather unusual position of being not only the sole representative of my party in Parliament but also representing a constituency in a region where there is well-developed devolution in a number of key policy areas. There are still many important issues which are either reserved or excepted matters, where decisions in Westminster impact directly upon my constituents. Furthermore, even in the case of those which are devolved, decisions taken here in Westminster can still influence policy in Northern Ireland either directly, through parity considerations, or indirectly, through impact on the block grant calculated by the Barnett Formula. In that context, it is unclear the degree to which my concerns, even on such matters, would command the wider level of support amongst other members which would be required to secure a debate in Backbench time or how that level of support could easily be determined. Most members have the opportunity to build a degree of support through their party structures, an option not available in my case. Instead, I have thus far opted to use either end-of-day of Westminster Hall adjournment debates to raise issues, such as global access to clean water and sanitation or Turkish property scams, both of which attracted significant interest from Members across party lines, having an element of either national interest or affecting people in many constituencies. The process for applying would also appear to be, by comparison, less onerous. My perception is that, as a sole member, build a case and support for a request for time to debate such issues in backbench time would have been both more onerous and less likely to succeed. My perception may, of course, be entirely wrong as I have never tested the hypothesis in practice. 19 April 2012

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP, Chair, Liaison Committee (P 24, 2012–13) Thank you for your letter of 26 June 2012 seeking my comments on the Procedure Committee’s proposal on select committee statements and whether the Backbench Business Committee might determine if these take place either in the Chamber or Westminster Hall. My own view is that most committees would only really wish to proceed with making a statement on publication of a report if they were guaranteed the opportunity of doing so in the Chamber. I appreciate that scheduling statements in Westminster Hall would enable more to take place but, unlike some debates, statements on publication of reports would only be worth doing in the Chamber, just before the main business of the day, when they would be likely to gain the maximum attention of Members, the press and others watching proceedings in the Chamber. July 2012

Written evidence submitted by Lindsay Hoyle MP, Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy Speaker P 33 (2012–13) 90 MINUTE ADJOURNMENT DEBATES IN WESTMINSTER HALL Thank you for your letter of 3 August, regarding a proposal to give the Backbench Business Committee responsibility for allocating a number of the 90 minute debates in Westminster Hall. As you will know, under Standing Order 10(3) it is the Chairman of Ways and Means who currently has the formal power to appoint business in Westminster Hall on the days in question. This power was exercised frequently during the experiment into cross cutting questions. Now that the business consists of adjournment debates alone, debates are allocated by ballot in the Speaker’s Office, with Mr Speaker himself choosing the subject for the first 90 minute debate on a Wednesday. My formal power under Standing Order 10(3) is still very occasionally required when a debate is needed that does not follow the usual individual Member/Government department pattern. For instance, following a request from the Commission, I have appointed for 4 September a 90 minute debate on the Administration Committee’s recent report into Visitor Access and Facilities. There are, then, rare instances where neither the individual ballot process nor the Backbench Business Committee process is entirely suitable, and a mechanism to appoint time by some other means will need to be retained for at least some portion of business in Westminster Hall. The power would also be required if cross cutting questions in Westminster Hall were to be revived. I would ask your Committee to bear this in mind during its consideration of this matter. My foremost concern is to ensure that adjournment debates in Westminster Hall remain as open as possible to backbench members—by which I mean not only the Backbench Business Committee, but also individual backbenchers. The current system allows applications for debates to be made (and granted) at short notice. I am not persuaded that the Backbench Business Committee would necessarily be able to respond as quickly. I am also concerned that the need to “win over” the Backbench Business Committee might affect the range of topics approved, simply because the process of persuading a whole Committee of the merits of a subject is different to making an individual application to a ballot. Ultimately any change must be in the interests of cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-11-2012 12:44] Job: 021734 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021734/021734_w015_P 33 Lindsay Hoyle MP Written ev on adjournment debates.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w17

backbenchers, both collectively and individually. It is for this reason that, if this proposal is to be considered at all, I support the suggestion of a consultation. Whilst I am not necessarily opposed to the Backbench Business Committee having responsibility for allocating one or two of the 90 minute debates per week, I was not aware that there was any dissatisfaction with the existing arrangements. I would be interested to know where this proposal originated. I would ask your Committee to ensure that, if a change is proposed, this is done in response to a demand from backbenchers, rather than for the sake of change itself. August 2012

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 11/2012 021734 19585