Review of the Backbench Business Committee

House of Commons Procedure Committee

Second Report of Session 2012–13

Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence

Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/proccom

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

HC 168 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].

Contents

Report Page

Summary 3

1 Introduction 5 Our inquiry 5 Success of the Committee 6

2 Composition and method of election 8 Method of election 8 Representation of the minority parties 9

3 Committee working methods 13

4 Allocation of time for backbench business 14 Amount of time available 14 Way in which time is allocated 15 “Set piece” debates 18 Reports from the Standards and Privileges Committee 20 Select Committee statements 21 Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall 23

5 Organising backbench time 25 Business motions 25 Time limits on frontbench speeches 27

Conclusions and recommendations 28

Formal Minutes 30

Witnesses 31

List of written evidence 31

List of additional written evidence 32

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 33

Summary

The Backbench Business Committee has been widely welcomed as a successful and effective innovation. We congratulate the Chair and all those who have served as members of the Committee on making it so. We see no need for major substantial change to the practices or procedures which have developed around backbench business and the work of the Committee. This report makes a number of generally modest recommendations intended to improve and refine the framework within which the Committee operates.

Concerning the composition and election of the Committee, we do not consider it appropriate to recommend further changes so soon after the decisions of the House in March this year. We will return to these matters in a future inquiry. We encourage the minority parties to reconsider their decision not to participate in the proceedings of the Backbench Business Committee under the provisions made for such participation in March, and in return undertake to reconsider the position at the end of the next Session.

We note the widespread approval for the Committee’s innovative approach in hearing representations from Members pitching for debating time in public, and recommend a change to the Standing Orders to regularise that approach.

A judgement on whether 35 days is the correct amount of time to allocate to backbench business in a Session is difficult to make given that the one Session of the Backbench Business Committee’s operation so far has been of unusual length; the House may wish to return to the issue when there is evidence from a session of normal length. We recommend that standing orders be amended to provide that the allocation of days to backbench business should be increased proportionate to the length of the Session, where a session exceeds a year in length.

There is scope for the Government to allow the Backbench Business Committee a legitimate expectation of a backbench business slot, in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, in every sitting week, with exceptions at certain times of the parliamentary year (for example, the debate on the Queen’s Speech and the Budget). Such an expectation will ensure a more even spread of backbench days over the year, and enable the Backbench Business Committee to plan ahead more effectively. We acknowledge the concerns of those who wish to ensure the place of the traditional “set-piece” debates in the Parliamentary timetable and will keep the issue under close review in the light of the comments by the Leader of the House and by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee concerning the scheduling of those debates.

We recommend that a new Standing Order be made enabling the Speaker to determine that a select committee Chair, or other member acting on its behalf, may make a statement on the day of publication on a select committee report, either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall. We also propose that responsibility for scheduling one of the four 90- minute adjournment debates per week in Westminster Hall be transferred from the Speaker to the Backbench Business Committee, on a one-year trial basis.

Within certain parameters, we recommend that the Backbench Business Committee be given the power to table business motions to regulate the time for which it is responsible.

To protect the time available for backbenchers in backbench business debates, we also recommend that the Speaker be enabled to set limits on the length of frontbench speeches, where he has set a limit on backbench contributions.

1 Introduction

1. The establishment of the Backbench Business Committee at the beginning of this Parliament was a direct consequence of the work in the last Parliament of the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, chaired by Dr Tony Wright (“the Wright Committee”). The Wright Committee considered that

The core business of Parliament has to matter more to the public and to individual Members. At present many Members do not see the point in attending debates or making the House the primary focus of their activities. In order to address this we must give Members back a sense of ownership of their own institution, the ability to set its agenda and take meaningful decisions, and ensure the business of the Chamber is responsive to public concerns. We believe this is what the public demands, what the institution needs and what most Members want.1

2. The Backbench Business Committee was seen as an essential—if not in itself a sufficient—step in “giving Members back a sense of ownership of their own institution”. Along with a House Business Committee, it would give effect to the first of the five principles enunciated by the Wright Committee, namely that “We should seek to enhance the House of Commons’s control over its own agenda, timetable and procedures, in consultation with Government and Opposition, whilst doing nothing to reduce or compromise such powers where they already exist.”2 The Wright Committee saw the benefits of the establishment of a Backbench Business Committee as follows:

We believe that establishment of clear “backbench time” managed by a Backbench Business Committee will be a major step forward. Without in any way compromising Government’s ability to have its own initiatives discussed and scrutinised, this Committee will take clear charge of part of the agenda for at least one day a week or its equivalent for the House collectively to discuss those matters that Members feel should be prioritised. It will create new opportunities for all Members, giving them a greater sense of ownership and responsibility for what goes on in their own House. It will make debates more responsive to public concerns, as fed in to Members by their constituents. It will strengthen the position of the widely- respected select committees. We feel that this is an essential reform which will have many benefits for Members, for Parliament as a whole, and for the esteem in which it is held.3

Our inquiry

3. Our inquiry has been held in response to the resolution of the House of 15 June 2010 stating that, in the opinion of the House, “the operation of the Backbench Business

1 First Report of the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, Session 2008–9 (HC 1117), Rebuilding the House, para 3. 2 HC (2008–09) 1117, para 22. 3 HC (2008–09) 1117, para 181.

Committee should be reviewed at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament”.4 Our terms of reference were as follows:

To review the operation of the Backbench Business Committee during Session 2010– 12, and in particular to inquire into:

• issues relating to the membership of the Committee;

• the amount of time available to the Committee and the way in which the Government allocates that time;

• the powers of the Committee, and the process by which the Committee determines the matters to be debated in backbench time.5

4. We invited all Members of Parliament to submit written comments to us; we are grateful to all those who responded. We are also grateful to the others who responded to our call for evidence, who included the Defence and Liaison Committees, the Westminster leaders of a number of the smaller parties represented in the House, and Dr Meg Russell of the Constitution Unit at University College London, who was the specialist adviser to the Wright Committee. All the submissions have been published and are available on our website. We have also had the benefit of the views of the Backbench Business Committee itself, as expressed in its report on its work in the 2010–12 session.6

5. We held three sessions of oral evidence, hearing from the Chair of the Wright Committee Dr (now Professor) Tony Wright; a panel of backbenchers comprised of Rt Hon Paul Murphy, Richard Ottaway and Dominic Raab; the Chair and two Members of the Backbench Business Committee; the Shadow Leader of the House, Angela Eagle; Pete Wishart, appearing on behalf of the smaller parties represented in the House; and finally the then Leader of the House, Rt Hon Sir George Young. We also spoke informally to Paul Evans, Clerk of the Backbench Business Committee. We thank all those who have assisted us in our deliberations.

Success of the Committee

6. The general tenor of the evidence submitted to us was very positive about the Committee’s first year of operation. Dr Meg Russell was of the opinion that

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

4 Votes and Proceedings, 15 June 2010. 5 www.parliament.uk/proccom, accessed 7 November 2012. 6 Backbench Business Committee, Second Special Report of 2010–12, Work of the Committee in Session 2010-12, HC 1926.

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.7

7. Bernard Jenkin echoed these comments:

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.8

8. Similar remarks were made by almost all those who appeared before us for oral evidence.9 The Backbench Business Committee has been widely welcomed as a successful and effective innovation. We congratulate the Chair and all those who have served as members of the Committee on making it so. We see no need for major substantial change to the practices or procedures which have developed around backbench business and the work of the Committee. The remainder of this report focuses on the various issues which have been raised with us about the operation of the Committee, and makes a number of generally modest recommendations intended to improve and refine the framework within which the Committee operates.

7 Ev w5 8 Ev w3 9 Qq 1, 2, 17, 18, 19, 100, 144.

2 Composition and method of election

Method of election

9. The Wright Committee recommended that the Backbench Business Committee:

should be comprised of between seven and nine members elected by secret ballot of the House as a whole, with safeguards to ensure a due reflection of party proportionality in the House as a whole.10

When the Backbench Business Committee was established by the House on 15 June 2010, the Standing Order provided for a committee of seven members and a Chair, to be elected by secret ballot of the whole House. Under the Standing Order, “such a number of candidates [were to] come from each party represented in the House or those of no party as [...] determined and announced in advance by the Speaker, in such a way as to ensure that the committee including the Chair reflect[ed] as closely as possible the composition of the House”.11

10. In its response to our report on elections to positions in the House in 2010, the Government expressed the following view:

It would be appropriate for the House to address the anomaly whereby members of the Backbench Business Committee other than the Chair (unlike those of other select committees) are elected by the House as a whole rather than by Members of the political party to which they belong.12

Our report had noted no such anomaly, nor had the Government sought to draw our attention to it in the course of our inquiry. Nevertheless, in March 2012, the Leader of the House brought forward proposals to change the Standing Orders accordingly. On 12 March 2012, the House agreed to a motion endorsing the principle that “parties should elect members of the Backbench Business Committee [...] in a secret ballot of all Members of that party by whichever transparent and democratic method they choose”, and to the consequent amendment of the Standing Orders.13

11. In oral evidence to the Committee, Tony Wright did not agree with the Leader’s use of the term “anomaly” to describe the system of whole House elections for membership of the Backbench Business Committee. He said:

Whatever else it was, it wasn’t an anomaly. It was there by design. The intention was that there should be a collective House mechanism: something that wasn’t the usual kind of party business that dominates most of what goes on here.14

10 House of Commons Reform Committee, First Report of Session 2008–09, Rebuilding the House, HC 1117, para 180. 11 Standing Order No. 122D(2)(f)(i) (from 15 June 2010 to 12 March 2012) 12 Procedure Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2010–12, 2010 elections for positions in the House: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2010–12, HC 1824. 13 V&P, 12 March 2012 14 Q 4

He went on to describe the changes brought forward by the Government as “a retrograde step.”15 Dr Meg Russell, who was specialist adviser to the Wright Committee, described the changes as “very much contrary to the spirit of what the Wright Committee proposed.”16

12. We were disappointed that the Government chose to bring forward changes to the election of the members of the Backbench Business Committee shortly after the announcement of this inquiry and without giving us the opportunity to reflect further on the matter, as we had said we would do.17 As the then Chair of this Committee noted during the debate on 12 March, “what the House decides today it can later decide to undo or amend”.18 We have therefore considered this matter as part of this inquiry, as we had intended.

13. In evidence to this inquiry, the then Leader of the House argued

I think it is right that the Conservative party should decide who it wishes to represent itself on this Committee in the same way that the Labour party and the other parties choose their own representatives. [...] I think we divide the Select Committees on party lines and I think it is right that each party should then decide who represents its party rather than having the decision potentially distorted by the votes of other parties with perhaps other motives.19

He was supported in this view by the Shadow Leader, although she was at pains to point out that the Opposition had granted its members a free vote on the issue.20

14. We are not persuaded that it was necessary to change the method of electing members of the Backbench Business Committee. In our report on 2010 elections to positions in the House, we noted that we had “received no adverse comments on the arrangements for the elections to the Backbench Business Committee”.21 Apart from the comments from the Leader and the Shadow Leader, nor did we receive any such comments in this inquiry. Backbenchers who submitted evidence to this inquiry were content with the method of election as originally proposed by Wright and as enshrined in the relevant Standing Order when the Backbench Business Committee was established. Nevertheless, the House made its decision in March this year and we do not consider it appropriate to recommend further changes so soon afterwards. We will return to these matters in a future inquiry.

Representation of the minority parties

15. The Backbench Business Committee is made up of seven members and a Chair. Under the Standing Order as it was passed at the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee, Members who were not members of the three largest parties in the House

15 Q 4 16 Ev w6 17 HC (2010–12) 1824, para 8. 18 HC Deb, 12 March 2012, c 48 19 Q 147 20 Qq 101–102 21 Procedure Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2010–12, 2010 elections for positions in the House, HC 1573, para 59.

were not able to stand for election to the chair of the Committee (since the Standing Order required that a candidature be supported by the signatures of at least ten members of the candidate’s party), nor could they become members of the Committee (since the Standing Order required the Speaker to “ensure that the committee including the Chair reflects as closely as possible the composition of the House”).22

16. In our report on 2010 elections to positions in the House, we made the following recommendation:

We recommend that an amendment be made to the standing orders to extend the size of the Backbench Business Committee to nine members, including the Chair, and that the additional place be allotted to a Member from a minority party to be elected by the whole House.

17. In its response to that report, the Government did not comment substantively on our recommendation. It noted instead that “it would not be appropriate for the House to make changes affecting the membership of the Backbench Business Committee and elections to it in advance of the review.”23 However, the Government then brought forward proposals for standing order changes to give the minority parties the opportunity to participate in the proceedings of the Committee. On 12 March 2012, the House agreed to the following change to Standing Order No. 152J:

In line 21, at end, insert—

‘(6A) The Committee shall have power to invite Members of the House who are not members of the Committee and who are of a party not represented on the Committee or of no party to attend its meetings and, at the discretion of the chair, take part in its proceedings, but—

(a) no more than one Member may be so invited to attend in respect of the same meeting;

(b) a Member so invited shall not move any motion or amendment to any motion, vote or be counted in the quorum.’.24

At the same time, changes were made to the provisions of Standing Order No. 122D relating to the election of the Chair of the Committee which had the effect of enabling the candidature for Chair—though not for membership—of a Member from one of the smaller parties (or of no party).25

18. In the course of the debate on 12 March, and during this inquiry, the changes to Standing Order No. 152J have been referred to as giving members of the minority parties “observer status”. In fact, the provisions go further than this: a member invited to participate in the Committee’s proceedings has, subject to the discretion of the Chair, the

22 Standing Order No. 122D (from 15 June 2010 to 12 March 2012) 23 HC (2010–12) 1824, page 10. 24 Votes and Proceedings, 12 March 2012. 25 The requirements for a valid candidature for Chair of the Backbench Business Committee are now contained in Standing Order No. 122D(1)(c) and (d).

same ability to contribute to those proceedings as any member of the Committee, except that he or she cannot vote, move motions or amendments or count towards the quorum. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee told us that, in practice, these restrictions would not often be invoked: “in reality, it would not make a difference, because we do not have votes on the Committee. Like most other select committees, we work on consensus.”26

19. Pete Wishart, speaking on behalf of the minority parties, acknowledged that the Government had made “an effort to try to accommodate us” but said that the provisions were “not satisfactory”.27 He said that the members of the minority parties would not exercise their right to participate in the proceedings of the Committee and were “not prepared to accept a second-class status when it comes to the composition of the Backbench Business Committee.”28

20. The Leader of the House defended the decision not to provide for full membership of the Committee for a representative of the minority parties by arguing that “the principle with Select Committees is that you look at the size of the Select Committee and then you allocate them according to the representation in the House”;29 the Wright Committee had recommended a size of between seven and nine members, and to increase it to a size where the minority parties would be entitled to a seat on that basis would make it very large and unwieldy.30 The Shadow Leader made a similar argument.31

21. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has identified the representation of minority parties on the Committee as one of the two “most vexatious issues” she faces.32 In written evidence, she noted that “the Backbench Business Committee in this session as in the last comprises exclusively Members who represent seats in England. Full minority party representation would therefore give the Committee a wider UK reach.”33 Jane Ellison, a member of the Backbench Business Committee, agreed that it would be desirable for members of the minority parties to participate in the Committee’s proceedings: “it would give a different perspective to have minority parties, because there might be issues that just do not really feature on the radar of backbenchers from the main opposition parties and from Government parties.”34

22. We are sympathetic to the position of the minority parties and consider that their participation in the deliberations of the Backbench Business Committee has the potential to enhance its proceedings. We are, however, disappointed that they have not chosen to take up the opportunity to attend and participate in the Committee’s meetings; such participation could have served to demonstrate in practice the value of the contribution that members of the minority parties have to make. Pete Wishart explained to us how the

26 Q 60 27 Q 123 28 Q 120 29 Q 150 30 Qq 148, 149 31 Qq 104–105 32 Q 55 33 Ev 38 34 Q 58

smaller parties and independents in the House co-operated together in matters such as their representation on select committees.35 Although the new standing order gives BBCom complete discretion over which member of parties not represented on it, or of no party, it could invite to participate in its proceedings, we endorse its approach of passing the decision about this to the group, and recognise that it would be invidious to seek to persuade any particular Member in this category to “break ranks”. We therefore encourage the group to reconsider their decision not to participate in the proceedings of the Backbench Business Committee. In return, we undertake to consider the effectiveness of the current arrangements at the end of the next Session and to look again at the possibility of granting full membership of the Committee to a representative of the minority parties.

35 Q 136

3 Committee working methods

23. The Backbench Business Committee’s report on its provisional approach explained that it planned to hold weekly open meetings where backbenchers could come and put to the Committee in public their proposals for debate.36 As BBCom’s more recent report on its work in 2010–12 notes, these public sessions have no formal procedural status, as the Committee was not given the power under its standing orders to take evidence.37 John Hemming, a member of the Backbench Business Committee, expanded on this issue in his evidence concerning the powers of the Committee:

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.38

24. We note the widespread approval for the Committee’s innovative approach in hearing representations from Members pitching for debating time in public, and we think that approach has proved a courageous choice which has helped cement the Committee’s reputation with backbenchers.39 We also note that those sessions have been held despite the lack of an explicit power to do so, and we think it is in the interests of the House to regularise this approach in the Committee’s standing orders to emphasise that approval. We agree with the Committee’s Chair that the full panoply of powers to send for persons, papers and records is not necessary;40 we recommend that S.O. No. 152J(6) be amended to add at the end the words “and to hear representations from Members of the House in public”.

36 Backbench Business Committee, First Special Report of 2010–12, Provisional Approach: Session 2010-11, HC 334, para 18 37 HC (2010–12) 1926, para 19. 38 Ev w9 39 Qq 21, 22, Ev w2. 40 Q 74

4 Allocation of time for backbench business

Amount of time available

25. Under Standing Order No. 14, thirty-five days (of which at least twenty-seven must be in the Chamber) in each session must be allotted for backbench business. The figure of thirty-five days is derived from the report of the Wright Committee, which examined the amount of time spent on various categories of business during a Session. That Committee concluded that “the minimum offering [of backbench time] should be of one day a week or the equivalent”. The Committee determined that “from the figures available, one day a week could easily be devoted to backbench business […], leaving more than enough days for a standard Government legislative programme and for Opposition days”.41 Later, the report refers specifically—albeit illustratively—to a figure of 35 days.42

26. We have considered the question of whether the figure of 35 days which is enshrined in Standing Orders is the right one. Certainly it does not appear that there should be any less time available for backbench business. The Backbench Business Committee’s report on its work in the 2010–12 session noted that “demand from backbench Members has consistently outstripped the supply of time available”.43 Nevertheless, neither were we overwhelmed with evidence suggesting that the amount of time available was insufficient. The question of how time is allocated appears to be more pressing than the total available. Backbench Business Committee member Jane Ellison told us “If you looked at the bids that we were left with at the end of the session, you might think, ‘Well, you got through nearly all of it,’ but of course, some missed their moment of opportunity because topicality had passed.”44 That remark reflected evidence given by the Chair of BBCom, who commented on the disappointment felt by Members who had applied for debates at points in the year when little time was available, and who missed their chance because by the time a slot became free the subject proposed had lost its topicality.45

27. It should also be noted that the one session of the Backbench Business Committee’s operation so far has been one of unusual length: two years where it would normally have been just one. As the Leader of the House told us, there were forty days’ debate given to backbench business in the Chamber in that session.46 A judgement on whether 35 days is the correct amount is difficult to make in that context; this is a matter to which the House may wish to return when there is evidence from a session of normal length.

28. This abnormally long session has nevertheless thrown up one anomaly in the operation of the standing order governing the amount of backbench time available in a session.

41 HC (2008–09) 1117, para 212. 42 HC (2008–09) 1117, para 216. 43 HC (2010–12) 1926, para 27. 44 Q 62 45 Q 62, 63 46 Q 151

Despite the fact that the session was twice as long as normal, which pro rata should have given the Backbench Business Committee 54 days in the Chamber, as the then Leader himself told us, “technically we could have stuck with 35 because it is so many days per session”.47 We recommend that Standing Order No. 14 be amended to provide that the allocation of 35 days to backbench business, and of at least 27 to the Chamber, be increased proportionate to the length of the Session, where a session exceeds a year in length.

Way in which time is allocated

29. The Wright Committee’s report discussed the merits of several possible ways of allocating time for backbench business, but did not recommend any one method. It noted that:

the simplest and probably most transparent way of ensuring sufficient time for backbench business spread evenly throughout a session, and susceptible to planning by the Backbench Business Committee, is to identify in Standing Orders a fixed day of the week as reserved for backbench business.48

The report recommended that, if a particular day was chosen, it should be Wednesday.49

30. The other options were: a changing weekday every week; the equivalent of a day a week, allocated as part days; and a minimum ration of days to be allocated throughout the year. The report further suggested that, if the “minimum ration” option were chosen, “there could be a fixed number [of backbench days] per three month “term”.50

31. The option which was implemented when the Backbench Business Committee was established was that of the “minimum ration” (35 days per session, of which at least 27 should in the Chamber), but without providing for any fixed, or minimum, number per “term”. The Backbench Business Committee’s report on its work during the 2010–12 session explains how the allocation of time works in practice:

37. The Government decides which days are to be taken in the Chamber as backbench days, and the dates of backbench business are announced in the Leader of the House’s weekly Business Statement, up to two weeks ahead. Thursday sittings in Westminster Hall are divided between the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee and are not determined by the Government. In our Provisional Approach Report, we asked the Government to give two or three weeks’ notice of the specific days on which backbench business will be taken in the Chamber, but this has rarely happened.

38. The way in which backbench days in the Chamber are allocated has meant that we operate by scheduling the next available date and then waiting for more time to become available. It precludes the possibility of scheduling debates a few weeks or

47 Q 151 48 HC (2008–09) 1117, para 212. 49 HC (2008–09) 1117, para 213. 50 HC (2008–09) 1117, paras 214–216.

even months in advance. It also means that it is not possible to schedule in advance any debates which are connected with a particular date in the calendar (such as St David’s Day or International Women’s Day) as it is not known beforehand whether there will be any backbench time allocated to the day or week in question. This has also been a difficulty when scheduling high-profile debates in which many Members wish to participate, such as the recent debate on assisted suicide. Understandably, Members wanted advance notice of the debate on this sensitive issue in order to allow a reasonable period of time for their constituents and campaign groups to feed in their views.

39. The distribution of backbench days through the current Session has been uneven. In some periods, the Government has provided regular weekly allocations of backbench business, whereas in others (for example the spring/summer of 2011) the allocation averaged one day per month. This has caused some difficulty, and we have found it particularly hard to explain to backbench Members why it has not been possible to meet their requests for debates in periods when very little time has been available.

40. The distribution of backbench days across the week has also been uneven. The large majority of days allocated to backbench business have been either Thursdays or the last day before a recess (32 out of 44 days).51

The report expresses “[the] hope that following the review of the operation of this Committee, some solution will be found which will enable a more strategic approach to be taken to the scheduling of backbench business.”52

32. The most obvious and straightforward means of scheduling backbench business in a more “strategic” way, and providing the Backbench Business Committee with more certainty, would be to allocate one day a week to such business. The number of days to be allocated in a session approximates to the number of sitting weeks in a normal session; only 27 of those 35 days can be expected to be held in the Chamber, rather than Westminster Hall, meaning that certain weeks (for example, those in which the Queen’s Speech debate and the debate on the Budget resolutions are held) could be excluded.

33. The solution of allocating one particular day of the week to backbench business (e.g. Wednesday, as suggested by the Wright Committee) did not find favour amongst our witnesses. The Government, perhaps unsurprisingly, argued that “it would be wrong to reduce the flexibility desirable for all interested parties by introducing a presumption that Backbench Business should take place on a certain day of the week.”53 The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, noting that were such a day to be allocated, it would almost certainly be a Thursday, commented “I am not sure whether that is something we would particularly want”.54 She was supported by Committee member Jane Ellison, who

51 HC (2010–12) 1926 52 HC (2010–12) 1926, para 41. 53 Ev 36 54 Q 64

described the prospect of a set Thursday as “quite limiting”, 55 and a similar view was expressed by backbencher Dominic Raab.56

34. The Chair of BBCom instead put forward a more flexible proposition:

What would help would be to know that there will be a day every week for us to have a backbench debate. We could then say to Members, “Okay, the day that will be allocated as a backbench day in week x will be for your debate”, because a lot of the way that the Backbench Business Committee works on a day-to-day basis is negotiating with Government in terms of time: “It would be good to have a debate on assisted dying,” for example. That was going to be a very high-profile debate, and having a Monday or a Tuesday, or even a Wednesday, would be beneficial, rather than having a Thursday debate. If we were scheduling a general debate without a vote, obviously a Thursday would be quite suitable. So if there were more of that kind of negotiation between the Backbench Business Committee and Government, that would give both of us the flexibility to schedule […]57

35. The Government has already committed itself to enabling more advance planning for certain “set-piece” debates:

Sir George Young: […] What I have said to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is if there are certain set-piece debates that she and her Committee want, like pre-European Summit or the Welsh Day, if she will come along at the beginning of the session and say, “My Committee definitely wants to hold a debate on this subject at a relevant time”, then we could factor that in as business managers, and do our best to make sure that they did have a date roughly when they wanted it in order to meet that particular set piece. That is an offer that I have made to the Backbench Business Committee, which I repeat this afternoon.58

36. In evidence to us, however, the then Leader resisted the suggestion that the Government might go further and give the Backbench Business Committee the certainty of a day in particular weeks ahead, saying:

There are real issues of programming Government business that make that quite difficult. There is the interaction with the House of Lords, as the shadow Leader has said, and the imperatives of getting Government business through by particular deadlines. Even Government Ministers do not have the sort of certainty about their own legislation that you have implied by giving them a promise of a certain date some time ahead.59

37. We recognise the difficulties which have been caused to the Backbench Business Committee by the uncertainty in the scheduling of its business and the irregular nature of the timing of the days which have been allocated to it by the Government. We also

55 Q 65 56 Q 26 57 Q 64 58 Q 155 59 Q 156

acknowledge the inherent uncertainty in the scheduling of all business by the Government, its own as well as backbench days. We commend the Government for its recognition of the particular problems with certain set-piece debates and for its commitment to do its best to make sure that the Committee has a date roughly when it wants it in order to schedule that particular set piece. We agree with our witnesses that the disadvantages of setting aside a particular day of the week for backbench business tend to outweigh the advantages. Nevertheless, given the correlation between the number of backbench days allocated by Standing Order No. 14 in the course of a session and the number of weeks in a normal Parliamentary session, we consider that there is scope for the Government to allow the Backbench Business Committee a legitimate expectation of a backbench business slot, in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, in every sitting week, with exceptions at certain times of the parliamentary year (for example, the debate on the Queen’s Speech and the Budget). Such an expectation will not always extend to knowing the precise date and time available longer in advance than at present, although we hope that the Government will honour its commitment to take into account requests for set-piece debates on or near particular dates, and that it will give greater notice of precise dates wherever possible. It will, however, ensure a more even spread of backbench days over the year, and enable the Backbench Business Committee to plan ahead with a reasonable expectation that it will not have to wait too long before another opportunity for a backbench debate becomes available.

“Set piece” debates

38. The Backbench Business Committee’s report setting out its provisional approach to the scheduling of backbench business noted that

The 35 days allocated to backbench business include a number of days which have until now been provided each year in government time to debate specific subjects. In recent years these have included:

• Defence—5 days • Pre-recess general adjournment debates—4 days • Welsh affairs—1 day close to 1 March • International Women’s Day—8 March • Public Accounts Committee reports—1 day (usually taken as two half days) • European affairs—2 days before EU Council meetings • Fisheries—1 day • Intelligence & Security Committee reports—1 day.

The report declares that “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.”60

60 HC (2010–12) 334, para 8.

39. In the course of this inquiry we have noted some concern that not all of these debates were, in the event, scheduled, or were not scheduled in as timely a way as those who wanted them would have liked. The Defence Committee noted, in a memorandum to our inquiry, that “Despite the [Backbench Business Committee] 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.”61 Listing the other subjects actually selected for debate in the Chamber on the occasions on which the Defence Committee made an application, the Committee continues

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.62

40. Paul Murphy, who led the application from Members for the annual “St David’s Day” debate on Welsh affairs, argued that such debates should be moved back into Government time:

I think that there should be a number of set-piece debates in Government time, because I think [not to do so] puts even greater pressure on the Committee to have to decide whether they stay with tradition or whether they allow topics that are more current to be debated in the way they have been. [...] Another one with which I was concerned: I was chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee for two years, and the ISC always had a debate in Government time. But again, it seems that went back to the Backbench Committee. There are certain things that ought to be a matter of the annual parliamentary timetable [...]63

41. We put these arguments to the Chair of BBCom. She replied

I have given a great deal of thought to this. It is one of the many things about which you have to conclude that there are 650 Members in this House, and therefore there are 650 very firmly held opinions that all want an airing. There are some people who are very strongly in support of defence days, International Women’s Day and St David’s day; there are also many others who are not.

The set piece debates make up 15 days altogether, and they are in the Wright Committee report. They are very important, because they formed the original allocation of 35 days. We must not ignore them, because they are what gave us the allocation of time from the Government in the first place, but if you look at them, they were traditional debates. It is perhaps a bit strong to say that some of them have had their day, but when they are competing on merit against everything else that is coming—your sexier debates—it is really important that we take a decision. We must

61 Ev w4 62 Ev w5 63 Q 31

decide whether there is a certain set of debates that is untouchable—that we keep as set piece debates—or whether we start with a blank sheet of paper. Thirty-five days— 27 days, really, in the Chamber—is not a lot of time, so if we start taking out 15 days of set piece debates it will leave us with 12 days, and we will start getting into problem areas. What we should do a little better is use the fact that these are set piece debates that have existed traditionally and give them extra points when people make representations to the Committee.64

42. We acknowledge and to some degree share the concerns of those who wish to ensure the place of the traditional “set piece” debates in the Parliamentary timetable. We note that the Leader of the House has already made a commitment to helping the Backbench Business Committee to plan more effectively for some of those debates which used to be held at particular times of the year.65 Considered alongside the suggestion by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee that more weight might be given to applications for such debates, that commitment gives us reason to hope that the problems which have been experienced by those seeking set-piece debates may be less acute in future sessions. We will continue to keep this issue under close review and will return to it if concerns persist about the Backbench Business Committee’s ability to give appropriate weight to requests for debates on matters of such significance to the nation as the defence of the realm and the work of the intelligence services.

Reports from the Standards and Privileges Committee

43. The Backbench Business Committee’s report on its work in 2010–12 notes

a minor problem which has emerged in respect of motions relating to reports from the Standards and Privileges Committee. Reports about the conduct of Members (which in future will come from the new Committee on Standards) appear to us to fall into a different category of business which is neither exactly backbench or government business. They are more akin to matters of Privilege or other issues which are commonly set down by the Speaker for debate. These motions need to be considered at short notice, and there is no discretion as to whether they are taken or not. It might be helpful if such motions, which rarely take up much time, were more clearly defined as non-discretionary business which it was neither the responsibility of Ministers or the Backbench Business Committee to schedule, but for which the Leader of the House would make time at the request of the Committee on Standards.66

44. We agree with the Backbench Business Committee that motions relating to reports from the Standards and Privileges Committee are not backbench business and should not be the responsibility of that Committee to schedule. We recommend that Standing Order No. 14 be amended to exclude such motions from the definition of backbench business.

64 Q 81 65 Q 155; see para 35 above. 66 HC (2010–12) 1926, para 36.

Select Committee statements

45. One of the innovations introduced by the Backbench Business Committee in Session 2010–12 was the scheduling of short debates to allow select committee Chairs to announce the publication of reports. In its own report on its work, the Backbench Business Committee notes that its aim in scheduling such “mini-statements” was “to help highlight and promote the work of select committees ”.67 That report invites us to consider whether this procedure should be formalised in standing orders.

46. At present, the procedure for making such statements is rather cumbersome: the Chair of the Committee in question must move a motion that the House takes note of the report, and Members who wish to ask questions must make interventions. In written evidence, the Chair of the Liaison Committee told us that “this is widely recognised to be an unsatisfactory procedure”68 and that the Leader of the House was in favour of formalising a procedure for making a statement:

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’.69

47. The Chair of the Liaison Committee reported that the Liaison Committee and the Leader of the House “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 [...].

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

67 HC (2010–12) 1926, para 48. 68 Ev w15 69 Ev w15

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.70

48. The Liaison Committee accordingly proposed a draft standing order which would provide for the Backbench Business Committee to schedule such statements, taking account of its discussions with the Leader of the House. The draft order would enable statements to be made on any day, not just those allocated to the Backbench Business Committee, so as to enable them to be made on the day of publication of the report concerned; statements made on days other than backbench business days would nevertheless count against the allocation of 35 days’ backbench business, at a rate of one quarter-day for every four such statements.71

49. The Liaison Committee has since agreed a report containing a slightly different proposal, less sympathetic to the arguments of the then Leader of the House requiring a statement to be relevant to “the wider political agenda of the day”. In its report on select committee powers, resources and effectiveness, that Committee proposes that a statement on a select committee report should be able to be made “within a reasonable period of the publication of the report: say, within 10 sitting days”. It further proposes that it should be for the Speaker (in consultation with the Chair of the Liaison Committee), rather than the Backbench Business Committee, to decide whether a select committee report is sufficiently topical and significant to merit a statement on the floor of the House on any sitting day.72

50. We have only one reservation about the Liaison Committee’s proposals. The Liaison Committee proposes to allow statements announcing the publication of a select committee report to be made only in the Chamber. It seems to us that it could, in some circumstances, be desirable for such statements to be made in Westminster Hall, rather than not at all. We note the Chair of the Liaison Committee’s response to our correspondence on this point, suggesting that Committee Chairs “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”.73 Nevertheless we consider that it should be for the Speaker, under the Liaison Committee’s latest proposals, to determine whether a statement should be made in the main Chamber or in Westminster Hall. This would give the procedure a greater degree of flexibility and could facilitate the scheduling of more select committee statements than would otherwise be possible. Experience will soon demonstrate whether the opportunity to make statements of this kind in Westminster Hall is valuable or not.

51. We recommend that a new Standing Order be made enabling a select committee Chair, or other member acting on its behalf, to make a statement on the day of publication on a select committee report, either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall.

70 Ev w15 71 Ev w15 72 Liaison Committee, Second Report of 2010–12, Select Committee effectiveness, resources and powers, HC 697, para 50. 73 Ev w 16

Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall

52. Not all time available for backbench debates is that allocated by the Backbench Business Committee. Backbenchers can also initiate the half-hour adjournment debates at the end of each sitting, and three half-hour adjournment debates and two debates lasting an hour and a half each on each Tuesday and Wednesday in Westminster Hall. Currently, such time is allocated by the Speaker, generally by ballot. We asked the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee whether some or all of those debates might be allocated instead by the Backbench Business Committee, noting that the choice of 90-minute Westminster Hall debates in particular appears to be suited to the kind of qualitative judgement which BBCom applies.

53. The Chair of that Committee replied suggesting that “We could take responsibility for one or two of the 90 minute debates held in Westminster Hall each week”, but with the proviso that “before taking this step, I would want to ensure that sufficient consultation had taken place with all backbenchers [...] I am aware that many colleagues value the existing system of allocation by ballot”.74 We undertook such consultation during the September sitting period. We received a relatively small number of replies, divided more or less equally between those who supported the Backbench Business Committee taking on the task of allocating one or two of the 90-minute debates in Westminster Hall and those who preferred the current system of allocation by ballot. Additionally, the Chairman of Ways and Means drew our attention to the fact that occasionally his power under Standing Order No. 10(3) is required when a debate is needed which does not follow the usual individual Member/Government department pattern (he gave the example of the recent 90-minute debate on the Administration Committee’s report on Visitor Access and Facilities). The power would also be required if cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall were to be revived.75

54. We consider that the 90-minute adjournment debates in Westminster Hall, which are not primarily a debate between a single backbencher and a Government minister, as are half-hour adjournment debates, but which involve wider participation by backbenchers from across the House, are of a nature which would benefit from the assessment which the Backbench Business Committee makes of the merits of proposals from backbenchers. If the scheduling of some or all of those debates were BBCom’s responsibility, it would help to ensure that those debates were topical and of wide interest across the House. The mixed response we received from backbenchers to our consultation on the matter suggests that it would be wise to make this change on a trial basis, so that at a later stage we can ask them again for their views in the light of experience. It also suggests that it would be sensible not to make the change for all four of the weekly 90-minute Westminster Hall debates, but to leave some of them to be allocated by the existing ballot system (or by the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 10(3)). We recommend that responsibility for scheduling one of the four 90-minute adjournment debates be transferred from the Speaker to the Backbench Business Committee. That transfer should take place on a trial basis initially, for one year, after which we will assess whether the arrangements

74 Ev 38 75 Ev w16

should continue, be abandoned, or be augmented by the addition of more of the 90- minute Westminster Hall debates.

55. If this transfer is to be made, we consider that it would be appropriate for the Backbench Business Committee to relax for these debates the rules which it operates in allocating debating time, in two particular respects. First, BBCom looks not only at the level of interest in the debate, but also at whether the proposal for the debate attracts cross- party support. The 90-minute debates in Westminster Hall often concern matters which are predominantly, or sometimes exclusively, of interest to Members from only one side of the House. We consider that BBCom should continue to assess the breadth of interest in a subject proposed for debate in one of the 90-minute Westminster Hall slots, but that it should not rule out allocating time in those slots to debates which do not have cross-party support. Secondly, we understand that BBCom does not currently accept applications for debates from Opposition frontbenchers. It is right that Opposition frontbenchers should not be able to take backbench time for debates on matters which are their frontbench responsibility. Under current rules, however, they may apply for adjournment debates in Westminster Hall on other matters—for example, issues of constituency concern. We would not wish to see such opportunities denied to Members who hold Opposition frontbench responsibilities and recommend accordingly that BBCom accept applications for 90-minute debates in Westminster Hall from Opposition frontbenchers on matters which are not their frontbench responsibility.

5 Organising backbench time

Business motions

56. The Backbench Business Committee, unlike the Government, does not have the power to table business motions to organise debates in backbench time. The Backbench Business Committee’s report on its work invites the Procedure Committee to consider “whether the Backbench Business Committee should be given some limited power to propose motions regulating the timing of debates at the sittings it controls”.76 In the course of this inquiry, we have considered not only the timing of debates but also the possibility of bringing forward, where appropriate, motions which provide for amendments to be moved and decided on at the end of a debate.

57. On the question of timing, John Hemming suggests 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.”77 Richard Ottaway gave an example of an occasion on which such a power, had it been available, might have been used:

It was an hour-and-a-half debate, which—interestingly enough—a colleague of ours tried to talk out [...], and the Speaker granted a closure motion. We needed a closure motion [...] because there was no time set out by when the question had to be put.78

58. On the question of amendments. Richard Ottaway described to us the problems that can arise when amendments to backbench motions are tabled and selected for debate. Discussing the debate on assisted suicide, he said:

We had to contrive a finish where the debate voluntarily stopped. Remember, we were on a four-minute time limit. It voluntarily stopped about 20 minutes early so the first amendment could be put and voted on, and at 15 minutes then allowed the second one at 6.55pm, before the deadline. That was silly, and quite clearly I think reform is needed to allow all amendments selected by the Speaker to be put at the moment of interruption.79

59. We raised these issues with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. She told us that she “would be reluctant to start giving the Backbench Business Committee powers to put down business motions.”80 She told us that she would prefer to ask the Government to table business motions on the Committee’s behalf:

76 HC (2010–12) 1926, para 55. 77 Ev w10 78 Q 21 79 Q 27 80 Q 70

I can’t see the problem, if I went to the Leader of the House to ask him to put down a business motion [...]. I don’t think there would be any particular problems with him to do that.81

The Leader of the House told us that “if [the Backbench Business Committee] came along and asked us to get a business motion through on the nod [...], we would assist.”82

60. We are more readily persuaded, however, by the arguments of the shadow Leader on this issue. She told us

In the past, prior to there being timetabling of motions, the House got used to nods and winks and doing things in that way. The House has moved away from that kind of approach for government business; it is perhaps anomalous, therefore, that the Backbench Business Committee can schedule two debates in a day [without more precise scheduling]—I think particularly of the debate on iPads and HS2. That seems to be the obvious one where we had the gallery packed with people from the affected areas, all wondering why on earth we were discussing the provision of iPads to members while they wanted to listen to the debate on HS2. Obviously, at times like that, the old way of doing things would be to have a nod and a wink between a few people and get the business on iPads cleared up as fast as possible. I do not have a particular problem with the idea that the Backbench Business Committee should be able to table a motion to ensure that if it is scheduled to debate then they can both be heard in the appropriate time with the amount of time allocated that the Backbench Business Committee decided.83

61. We commend the Leader of the House for his willingness to facilitate the organisation of backbench business. Nevertheless, we do not consider it appropriate for the House to have to continue to rely either on the Government, or on ad hoc nods and winks, to regulate the internal timing of backbench debates. We recommend that the Backbench Business Committee be given the power to table business motions to regulate the time for which it is responsible. Such motions should: a) have gained the unanimous support of the Backbench Business Committee at a quorate meeting before being tabled; b) be restricted to the internal timing of debates in allotted backbench time—they should not be capable of, for example, suspending the moment of interruption on a backbench business day (though they should be capable of providing that the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings in backbench time may be put after the moment of interruption); c) be taken forthwith, without debate, at the start of the debate to which they relate.

81 Q 71 82 Q 165 83 Q 112

Time limits on frontbench speeches

62. At present, if a debate is heavily subscribed, the Chair may impose time limits on speeches. Under Standing Order No. 47, he may do so in respect of both backbench speeches (under paragraph (2)) and frontbench speeches (paragraphs (3) and (4)). The limit in respect of frontbench speeches is, however, subject to paragraph (5)(b), which requires the Speaker to add to the twenty minutes (or ten, in the case of a topical debate) to which frontbench speeches may be limited up to a further fifteen minutes for interventions. The power to impose a time limit on frontbench speeches is thus not used, because a limit of thirty-five minutes would not be worth imposing. Jane Ellison described the lack of any effective power to limit frontbench speeches as “a pressing problem”, saying that “to see backbenchers in a backbench debate being reduced to a four-minute time limit almost immediately when you have had two 25-minute Front-Bench speeches is not the right way round.”84

63. The Shadow Leader of the House was sympathetic to this view. She suggested that “it can sometimes make debates very perfunctory and it is unfair if the front bench hog all sorts of time, especially in backbench time”. She proposed that, if time limits were to be imposed on frontbenchers, those limits should be set by the Speaker. 85

64. We agree that it is not acceptable for lengthy frontbench speeches to eat into time provided for backbench debates. The House should certainly hear from the front benches: as has been noted in evidence to us, part of the value of giving backbenchers control of their own time in the House is that they can force not only the Government but also the Opposition front benches to address issues which they would rather not debate.86 Backbench time should nevertheless be primarily at the disposal of backbenchers. Where demand for time is such that limits are imposed on backbench speeches in backbench time, frontbenchers should also be subject to a time limit. In our view, the occupant of the Chair—who may impose or vary a limit on backbench speeches—is best placed to determine when such a limit should be imposed on frontbench contributions, and what that limit should be. We recommend that Standing Order No. 47 be amended to allow the Speaker, where he sets a limit on speeches in debates on backbench business, greater discretion than at present to apply and set a suitable limit on frontbench speeches. That limit may be the same as or longer than that applying to backbench contributions; and should be subject to reasonable extension for interventions.

84 Q 70 85 Q 114 86 Ev w3, Q 18.

Conclusions and recommendations

1. The Backbench Business Committee has been widely welcomed as a successful and effective innovation. We congratulate the Chair and all those who have served as members of the Committee on making it so. (Paragraph 8)

Committee working methods

2. We recommend that S.O. No. 152J(6) be amended to add at the end the words “and to hear representations from Members of the House in public”. (Paragraph 24)

Allocation of time for backbench business

3. We recommend that Standing Order No. 14 be amended to provide that the allocation of 35 days to backbench business, and of at least 27 to the Chamber, be increased proportionate to the length of the Session, where a session exceeds a year in length. (Paragraph 28)

4. We consider that there is scope for the Government to allow the Backbench Business Committee a legitimate expectation of a backbench business slot, in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, in every sitting week, with exceptions at certain times of the parliamentary year (for example, the debate on the Queen’s Speech and the Budget). (Paragraph 37)

5. We agree with the Backbench Business Committee that motions relating to reports from the Standards and Privileges Committee are not backbench business and should not be the responsibility of that Committee to schedule. We recommend that Standing Order No. 14 be amended to exclude such motions from the definition of backbench business. (Paragraph 44)

Select committee statements

6. We recommend that a new Standing Order be made enabling a select committee Chair, or other member acting on its behalf, to make a statement on the day of publication on a select committee report, either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall. (Paragraph 51)

Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall

7. We recommend that responsibility for scheduling one of the four 90-minute adjournment debates be transferred from the Speaker to the Backbench Business Committee. That transfer should take place on a trial basis initially, for one year, after which we will assess whether the arrangements should continue, be abandoned, or be augmented by the addition of more of the 90-minute Westminster Hall debates. (Paragraph 54)

8. We consider that BBCom should continue to assess the breadth of interest in a subject proposed for debate in one of the 90-minute Westminster Hall slots, but that it should not rule out allocating time in those slots to debates which do not have cross-party support. We also recommend that BBCom accept applications for 90- minute debates in Westminster Hall from Opposition frontbenchers on matters which are not their frontbench responsibility. (Paragraph 55)

Organising backbench time

9. We recommend that the Backbench Business Committee be given the power to table business motions to regulate the time for which it is responsible. Such motions should:

a) have gained the unanimous support of the Backbench Business Committee at a quorate meeting before being tabled;

b) be restricted to the internal timing of debates in allotted backbench time—they should not be capable of, for example, suspending the moment of interruption on a backbench business day (though they should be capable of providing that the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings in backbench time may be put after the moment of interruption);

c) be taken forthwith, without debate, at the start of the debate to which they relate. (Paragraph 61)

10. We recommend that Standing Order No. 47 be amended to allow the Speaker, where he sets a limit on speeches in debates on backbench business, greater discretion than at present to apply and set a suitable limit on frontbench speeches. That limit may be the same as or longer than that applying to backbench contributions; and should be subject to reasonable extension for interventions. (Paragraph 64)

Formal Minutes

Wednesday 7 November 2012

Members present:

Charles Walker, in the Chair

Mrs Jenny Chapman John Hemming Thomas Docherty Mr David Nuttall Mr James Gray Jacob Rees-Mogg Tom Greatrex Martin Vickers

Draft Report (Review of the Backbench Business Committee), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 64 read and agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Second Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report.

Written evidence from the Chairman of Ways and Means was ordered to be reported to the House for publication on the internet.

[Adjourned till Wednesday 21 November at 4.00 pm

Witnesses

Wednesday 23 May 2012 Page

Professor Tony Wright, Former Chair of the House of Commons Reform Committee Ev 1

Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, Richard Ottaway MP and Mr Dominic Raab MP Ev 4

Wednesday 13 June 2012

Natascha Engel MP, Chair, Backbench Business Committee, Jane Ellison MP, member, Backbench Business Committee and Ian Mearns MP, member, Backbench Business Committee Ev 13

Wednesday 20 June 2012

Ms Angela Eagle MP, Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Ev 22

Pete Wishart MP, Scottish National Party Member of Parliament for Perth and North Perthshire Ev 24

Rt Hon Sir George Young MP, Leader of the House of Commons Ev 28

List of written evidence

1 Richard Ottaway MP (P 262, 2010---12) Ev 34 2 Rt Hon Sir George Young MP, Leader of the House of Commons (P 266, 2010---12 & P 22, 2012–13) Ev 34: Ev 38 3 Natascha Engel MP (P 08, 2012---13) Ev 37 4 Natascha Engel MP, Chair, Backbench Business Committee (P 23, 2012---13) Ev 38

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 w 16 10 Lindsay Hoyle MP, Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy Speaker (P33, 2012–13) Ev w16

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

Session 2010–12 First Report Ministerial Statements HC 602 First Special Report Ministerial Statements: Government Response to the HC 1062 Committee’s First Report of Session 2010–12 Second Report Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny: HC 800 (a) Select committee amendments (b) Explanatory statements on amendments (c) Written parliamentary questions Second Special Report Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny: HC 1063 (a) Select committee amendments (b) Explanatory statements on amendments (c) Written parliamentary questions: Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2010–11 Third Report Use of hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber HC 889 and committees Fourth Report Reasoned opinions on subsidiarity under the Lisbon HC 1440 Treaty Fifth Report 2010 elections for positions in the House HC 1573 Sixth Report Lay membership of the Committee on Standards and HC 1606 Privileges Third Special Report Lay membership of the Committee on Standards and HC 1869 Privileges: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2010–12 Seventh Report Debates on Government e-Petitions HC 1706 Fourth Special Report Debates on Government e-Petitions: Government HC 1902 Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2010–12 Eighth Report E-tabling of parliamentary questions for written HC 1823 answer

Ninth Report 2010 elections for positions in the House: HC 1824 Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2010–12

Session 2012–13 First Report Sitting hours and the Parliamentary calendar HC 330 First Special Report Reasoned opinions on subsidiarity under the Lisbon HC 712 Treaty: Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2010–12

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o001_th_12-05-23 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidence

Taken before the Procedure Committee on Wednesday 23 May 2012

Members present: Mr Greg Knight (Chair)

Karen Bradley John Hemming Nic Dakin Mr David Nuttall Sir Roger Gale Jacob Rees-Mogg Mr James Gray ______

Examination of Witness

Witness: Professor Tony Wright, Former Chair of the House of Commons Reform Committee, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Welcome back to the Palace of having done so, can you then say fairly succinctly to Westminster. what extent you think that what you wanted to achieve Professor Wright: Thank you very much. has been achieved and what has not? Chair: It seems like old times. Professor Wright: On the first point, and without Professor Wright: Yes. going through the whole history, you have to Chair: As you know, we are conducting an inquiry remember the context in which we were established into the Backbench Business Committee. Although it and the sort of meltdown this place was in at the time. would be wrong to say we are starting with a blank Certainly I felt the huge task was not just to agonise piece of paper, I think it would be accurate to say we about expenses and how we get out of that, but to have made no decisions, we have ruled nothing out do something serious that over the longer term would and we have ruled nothing in at this stage. So we enhance the reputation and the vitality of the House would very much welcome hearing from you, with of Commons. I thought it was in a parlous state, your views as to how it has worked so far and what frankly, and not just because of expenses either. But could possibly be looked at to see if we could improve that had really brought it to a head. Along with other the basis upon which the Committee operates. Would people, I thought that part of that was trying to be you like to make an opening statement or do you want serious about what we thought being a Member of us to get straight down to questions? Parliament was all about, and what we thought the Professor Wright: Half a minute? relationship between Executive and Legislature was Chair: The floor is yours. all about. It was in that context that this Committee Professor Wright: Having chaired committees half a was established. I was more interested in getting the minute seems to be acceptable. axial principles right. The structures you can talk Chair: The floor is yours, and also, having chaired about and you can amend and you can see over time, committees, half a minute normally means two but I thought the axial principles focused on what I minutes. have just said. Professor Wright: No, I mean half a minute. Two What we proposed was designed to reflect a change points only. I think the measure of a change is whether in the terms of trade inside this place between people can envisage it not existing, and it seems to me Government and Legislature. That is why it seemed that the formation of Backbench time, the Backbench to me to be obvious that we ought to have our scrutiny Business Committee, is one of those things, which I committees elected by Members and not chosen by don’t think—I may be wrong—people would want to the party managers. disinvent having done it. It seems to be right. That is Once you have done it, it seems just obvious that you one thing. wouldn’t have scrutineers chosen by those that they The second thing is the delicious pleasure I take in are scrutinising. But for, well, eons that is how it was. the fact that almost the only person on the Committee Similarly, in principle, it did not seem right that, apart that you and I were on that produced this change, who from certain defined exceptions, the business of the opposed its formation, now chairs it with élan and House was in the hands of the Government. That had energy. I think that captures how we do things here. happened for particular historical reasons back in the 19th century, but there was no reason why it should Q2 Sir Roger Gale: Again, welcome back. You, as endure now. So changing that, so that at least we could Chairman of the Wright Committee, and our own identify a category that we could call backbench Chairman, who was a member of that Committee, time—and it is not easy to separate it out, as you all agonised long and hard before you produced the realise—which would be base time owned by report, which was then put through with some backbenchers seemed, as I say, to be an important opposition from the House. But a lot of, particularly, principle. new Members may still be wondering what it was that The third area was to do with petitioning. You may you thought you wanted to achieve through the want to ask about that. I have certain views on that Backbench Committee. Could you clarify that, and, and I think it is still causing us difficulty. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o001_th_12-05-23 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Ev 2 Procedure Committee: Evidence

23 May 2012 Professor Tony Wright

Q3 Sir Roger Gale: You did not answer the second seemed to me to be outrageous: House business half of the question, which is, having done it, to what whipped; people thought this was acceptable, and then extent do you think the expectations have been met? they voted for it. It wasn’t an anomaly. It was part of There are those in this place who would say it is the design of the original. simply a forum for a handful of malcontents. John Hemming: I think you answered all of it Professor Wright: I tell you what I would say about reasonably completely. that because it is said in the report as well—and I said it a lot when I was introducing the report here. It is Q5 Mr Gray: There was a whip, but quite a few of that the success or failure of this will not depend on us rebelled and made the point at the time. There having put in place a structure. It will depend entirely should not have been a whip. It was quite wrong— on how Members see themselves and how they want outrageous. The law of unintended consequences to use their time. Just looking at the report again, we sometimes occurs in these things. I am very concerned say, talking about the Backbench Business about the set-piece debates, in my case with regards Committee, “These gains will not be realised unless to defence. The same also applies to all the other set individual backbenchers are committed to piece debates there used to be. There were about of parliamentary activity and avail themselves of these the order—as you well know—a dozen days or opportunities”. If they don’t want to do that then the thereabouts for a variety of subjects. Of course that structure will collapse. It all comes back to how has all been handed to the Backbench Business people see what they are doing. Committee. As a result of that, nearly all of those set- piece debates have been superseded by more Q4 John Hemming: The House of Commons attractive, sexier things that they are doing instead. I Reform Committee recommended that—uniquely very strongly support the Committee but, nonetheless, among the select committees—the Backbench do you think there is a law of unintended Business Committee should be elected by the whole consequences here, and is there some mechanism by House. That is not just the Chair of the Backbench which we could insist there are a number of days for Business Committee but the members. The set-piece debates, as well as the free-roving topical Government pushed for change relatively recently, debates that the Committee is doing? and there have now been elections under the new Professor Wright: I don’t have a line on it. All I know system as well as the old system. For myself, I am a is that this is a necessary part of setting up a new member of the Backbench Business Committee and I arrangement. I think that is a good thing, actually. was unopposed under both systems, so the electoral Having had my share over the years of set-piece systems made no difference, but there have been debate days—and I know the particular issue about substantial changes with the other representatives. The defence—I do think it is a good idea to put them in first question is why did the Reform Committee the pot, and to think— recommend that all the members should be elected by the whole House, and do you believe that the Q6 Mr Gray: But they have gone. They are not in Government was right to change that so that the the pot, they have gone. ordinary members are elected by the individual Professor Wright: No, but time is always scarce. We parties? want to do new things. We want to do innovative Professor Wright: I see that the Leader of the House, things. If you say we should always do what we have in his submission to this Committee—and I think also done then the scope for innovation is much reduced, on the floor of the House when it was debated—talked that is all I would say. about the present arrangements being, as he calls it, “an anomaly”. Whatever else it was, it wasn’t an Q7 Mr Gray: No, that wasn’t the point I was anomaly. It was there by design. The intention was making. For example, the Intelligence and Security that there should be a collective House mechanism: Committee day: is it likely that that will take something that wasn’t the usual kind of party business preference over the debate to ban the keeping of wild that dominates most of what goes on here. Members animals in zoos? I don’t think it is. Therefore, looking of Parliament were quite able to decide for themselves forward, say, 10 years, I think that things like the set- who, among their number, they wanted to sit on their piece days on defence, the all-day debate we used to Backbench Business Committee, and it did not require have prior to European summits, the half-day for the the parties to decide, only that they would elect their Intelligence Committee, and the Welsh and Scottish own people. So it wasn’t anomalous at all. It was an days, all those things will almost disappear by absolutely intrinsic part of our thinking, and I do think definition because they are not the matters on which it is a retrograde step that it has happened. Members have overflowing postbags. Members are What I think about the way in which it happened—to going to be asking for things that are sexy to them, go back to my point about how it all comes back to but things that are actually important for the wealth of the culture, really—is that it all comes back to how the nation may well be removed. Members of Parliament think about themselves: the Professor Wright: Yes. I don’t know what the answer fact that not only was it proposed but it was assented is. You could say, “We will guarantee we will have to by Members of Parliament. I know the argument these as a little first take on backbench time”. I would was, “You are doing your inquiry. Why not wait?” resist that because then I think it will stop you Yes, that is an important argument, but I am also quite thinking freshly—there may be accommodations dismayed by the fact that Members of Parliament here—about how you can divide the time so that you were happily whipped. That was the other thing that can get new things in. I don’t know whether you cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o001_th_12-05-23 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 3

23 May 2012 Professor Tony Wright should have a day devoted to international women’s fact is at the moment there is no defined time. It is day. The House has to take a view on these things as what the Government gives to it when it can find the to whether they were in at a time for a reason, whether time to do it. in fact you might want to do other things now, or I see from the Backbench Committee’s own report whether you want to do it for a shorter time and do that the overwhelming majority of these debates have other things for other bits of the time. It is an taken place on Thursdays, or on the day before the opportunity to think quite freshly about how this recess. We were pretty emphatic in our report, and in precious commodity called time is used in this place. fact we say, “It is important that backbench business is not relegated to a backwater”. That is a big fight to Q8 Mr Gray: To press you slightly further on it, of make sure that it sits in mainstream time. In fact we course, it is not an opportunity for the whole House even had outrageous ideas, and of course we were also to think of it constructively. grappling in the margins with the fact that Thursday, Professor Wright: No. at that point—and I don’t really know what happens Mr Gray: It is an opportunity for the very small now—had become a dead day. There was nobody here group of people who have been elected on to the on Thursdays. We said rather outrageously that we Backbench Business Committee to decide. So it is not thought there was a case for putting PMQs on a actually the 650 Members of Parliament saying, “We Thursday, to make sure it was a proper day in a proper are not going to waste any time on set-piece defence week. Then in the context of that we wanted perhaps debates”. It is a group—of whatever it is; eight people a Wednesday to be backbench day. To be shuttled out I think, isn’t it—on the Committee who are under so that you don’t know when it is going to be, so there pressure and have a structure; people turn up there on is no predictability, and then only to have it when the Monday afternoons and they bid for things that are Government allows it to happen, I think these are not important to them. Almost by definition that means acceptable things. that these important matters for the state will not be discussed in Parliament. It is not a matter for Q10 Karen Bradley: Rebuilding the House put Parliament. It is a matter for the Committee. several options for time allocations. Is there any one Professor Wright: That is why it is important to make that you would recommend for us to consider for the sure that you get people on to this Backbench report? Business Committee in whom you have some sort of Professor Wright: Just reading the report again now, trust, who you can hold to account, who you can elect thinking, we didn’t come down on one and—I think and re-elect, or not re-elect if that is your disposition. we recognised, not least because we were being guided by a clerk who understood the intricate Q9 Karen Bradley: I am going to cover questions problems of scheduling—in a sense, we flagged up about allocation of time to the Backbench Business the advantages and disadvantages of different models. Committee. But before that, could you share with the Looking at it again, I wonder if there is not a sort of Committee any thinking that you had, before it was hybrid here that we could do, so that you could get created, about the way that the Backbench Business some fixtures. I am not saying weekly, but at least Committee’s motions can be amended, which is of over a fortnight, over a month, so that you know there course later than most motions in the House, and in are fixtures in the calendar. Then, yes, there can be practice has caused some uncertainty for colleagues variability around that. So I am sure you could who have other commitments and things? possibly get the best of both worlds on this. Professor Wright: Yes. Frankly, we did not give any thought to that, those issues about how it would work Q11 Karen Bradley: What if there was more use of in practice—not least those to do with how this time Westminster Hall, particularly the times at the moment should be used—and whether there should be some of adjournment debates chosen by the Speaker, would Standing Order changes to allow it to control time and you favour seeing more of those going towards the so on, and your point about amending motions. That backbenchers? was way down the track for us. It was getting the Professor Wright: Personally, I would. I don’t think it mechanism in place that was the objective. I think the is something we pronounced on. But I see the ethos of what we said was, “This body should have Backbench Committee has talked about this, and it the maximum amount of flexibility in its operation”. seems to be a very sensible idea. My sense is that there are issues to do with the broad issue of time. I do think it is disappointing that there Q12 Nic Dakin: From your perspective—and you is not more predictability in when Backbench business have a particularly unique perspective on this—what is to be taken, and I know this has become a impact do you think the Backbench Business complaint. There have been some very significant Committee has had on governance and decision debates taking place through the channel of this making, and how effective do you think it is at this Committee. But, as I have said, they have happened point in its development? at very short notice, and I think it is not acceptable Professor Wright: It has had an entirely positive effect really for it to be sort of ad hoc-ed. I know there are on the reputation of Parliament. I am not sure if that huge difficulties in timetabling, but I do think that is what you mean, or whether you mean more direct there should be more predictability in the system. We impact on policy? certainly expected there would be more. We discussed whether it would be best to take a defined day a week, Q13 Nic Dakin: Both really; policy in particular. One or whether you could do it slightly differently. The of the issues is that people get excited about an issue. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o001_th_12-05-23 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Ev 4 Procedure Committee: Evidence

23 May 2012 Professor Tony Wright

The issue is then debated on the ﬂoor of the House, think there is a huge issue then. If the Government but what happens next? Is that raising expectations in says, “Ah, but it has to come out of backbench time”, order not to deliver? I think that cannot be right. There are issues about Professor Wright: Yes. What is interesting is if you how the House thinks it wants to handle petitions. I read the press, if you read commentaries on have a view that says, actually, I believe in Parliament now, it is almost becoming axiomatic now representative democracy not in direct democracy, but to say that Parliament has upped its game. If you just what I do know is that the demand for direct go back three or four years, the commentary was all democracy will increase the less vital the House of about Parliament dying on its feet. Now something Commons looks. The more vital it becomes, then I has changed, and I am not saying it is entirely because think the more it can claim the representative of these new reforms. But I do think there is a certain democracy mantle and then handle the petitions thing extra authority that comes from electing chairs of in a different way. select committees, and I think there is an extra vitality that comes from getting things discussed that neither Q15 Chair: Is there anything else you want to add to the Government nor the Opposition particularly want the evidence you have given? If there was one change to talk about. you could make now to the way the Backbench That is wholly good. It is wholly good in policy terms, Business Committee operates, what would it be? because it enables people through Parliament to speak Professor Wright: I think I would unscramble these to Government in debates that would not otherwise changes that have been made recently. In the debate take place, but it is very good for the reputation of the back in March, I saw the shadow Leader of the House House itself. said that our report was not holy writ. It is not holy writ, but I do think the principles behind it are ones Q14 Nic Dakin: You mentioned e-petitions earlier, that the House has to decide whether it still believes and you indicated you might have some views on that. in or not. Professor Wright: I just think at the moment it cannot be a satisfactory situation. You have had a party or a Q16 Chair: Do you mean the Shadow Leader or the Government that says, “Our policy is that if you get Deputy Leader? £100,000—” Professor Wright: What did I say? Chair: That is the old policy. Chair: “Shadow Leader.” Professor Wright: They were the old days. “If you get Professor Wright: No, I meant the Deputy Leader of 100,000 names on an e-petition, then we will the House. Thank you for clarifying that. No, I am guarantee that Parliament will debate it.” Again, we sure that would have been a mistake too far. said this. We say that in an electronic age numbers Chair: On behalf of the Committee, thank you for alone are not enough to guarantee attention. They your time and for your input into this very important shouldn’t be. It is not difﬁcult to get 100,000. But if matter. If there is anything else you wish to add, which a Government is giving a promise to the electorate, comes to mind at a later date, please do not hesitate “First, you get 100,000 names and we will give you to drop me a line. a debate in Parliament”, well, that is a Government promise. It is not a House of Commons promise. I

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, Richard Ottaway MP, and Mr Dominic Raab MP, gave evidence.

Q17 Chair: On behalf of the Committee, thank you issues? Perhaps I could start with you, Paul, and then for being with us today and being willing to share ask you, Dominic. your views with us. Do any of you wish to make an Paul Murphy: It has given Members of Parliament opening statement before we get down to questions? the opportunity to raise issues that neither the Richard? Opposition nor the Government were particularly Richard Ottaway: Yes, Chairman, I would just like to keen on being raised. I am not so convinced about say that I think the establishment of the Backbench the petition through email, because I think that is an Business Committee is the most important reform that opportunity for organisations and single-issue groups has happened since the select committee system was to whip up opinion in a way that perhaps would not established in 1979. It has been remarkably effective necessarily be representative of the majority of the and I welcome the fact that you are looking at ways people in the country. I think you have to weigh up each petition individually, in such a way that it is the to improve it. more genuine ones that are dealt with by the Committee. I am a bit dubious about Parliament by Q18 Chair: Then could I ask the other two witnesses email. the questions that emanate from that: how do you rate However, I do think that the time that has been given the effectiveness of the Backbench Business to Members of Parliament has raised hugely important Committee to date; how do you rate its performance, issues—some of which, in fact, I think have shaped and how effective do you think it has been in seeking Government policy. I suppose I would share Richard’s to hold the Government to account on a number of view that it is one of the most important developments cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o001_th_12-05-23 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 5

23 May 2012 Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, Richard Ottaway MP and Mr Dominic Raab MP in our procedures, certainly in my time in the House Committee did give us almost a full day on the Floor of Commons over the last 25 years. of the House. The problem they faced was a logistical one of simply not having enough time to be able to Q19 Chair: Thank you. Dominic? satisfy the demands put before it. The process was Mr Raab: I see the value in the Backbench Committee fine, but the resources simply weren’t there by way in a similar way to Richard, but in specific terms it is of days. the ability of Parliament to hold the Government, the Executive, to account. Secondly, as a new MP, it Q21 Nic Dakin: Richard, is that similar to your shows remarkable scope for cross-party consensus. experience? The debates—all three of the ones that I have Richard Ottaway: Yes. First of all, I like the format managed to secure—have been cross-party debates, that they operate, a drop-in-type thing. It was a and perhaps I might come on to why I think that is Tuesday lunchtime, I think. I think it is quite smart significant later, both if you believe in slightly less compared with the more formal set-up we have on the tribal politics but also in terms of using the Committee Foreign Affairs Committee. I think that works quite as a lever to influence Government. So I think that well. is important. I have been successful in having three debates. I asked For a backbencher, the ability to push the envelope for three debates and I was given three debates; two and push the Government 10% out of its comfort zone in my capacity as the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs rather than over a cliff edge is important. Ironically, Committee. The first was on the cuts to the BBC today is a good example of it. The Prime Minister World Service. The Government having rejected the gave in PMQs a very clear commitment on prisoner Foreign Affairs Committee’s report calling for a voting. As you may well remember, he referred partial-reversal of the cuts, we took it to the floor of directly to a Backbench Committee debate where, the House with the support of the Committee, had the with a majority of 200 on a free vote, we defeated the debate and the Government did a U-turn—a decision motion that prisoners should be given the right to they had rejected in their response to our report. So it vote. I think that is a good, tangible illustration of the was remarkably influential there. I went to a reception kind of difference the Committee can make. at lunchtime today with the BBC setting out their coverage of the Olympic Games, and the BBC World Q20 Nic Dakin: You have all had experience in the Service—the Arabic Service—is going to have a box process of bidding. Are you satisfied with that process at the Olympic Games. That service would not be in or is there anything you think could be improved? existence if it wasn’t for the decision by the Richard Ottaway: Do you mean the process by which Backbench Business Committee to give a debate on the Committee operated? the Floor of the House. It gives you an idea of the Nic Dakin: Yes. leverage that you can get there. Paul Murphy: The process by which the Committee The second was a very straightforward debate on the itself operates or our experience of trying to get a oversight of the European Common Foreign and debate? Defence policy. It just needed a motion of the House. Nic Dakin: I suppose your experience of trying to get It was an hour-and-a-half debate, which— a debate and that process of bidding, which obviously interestingly enough—a colleague of ours tried to talk engages with the Committee. out because I think he was opposed to anything with Paul Murphy: It took me two years to get a debate the word “Europe” in it, and the Speaker granted a on St David’s Day, the Welsh Day debate. I wouldn’t closure motion. We needed a closure motion on the for one second put the blame for taking that time on Backbench because there was no time set out by when the Backbench Committee because I think that on the question had to be put. both occasions, when I and others appeared before it, the Members were sympathetic to the points that I and The third one was the debate on assisted suicide, others were making, bearing in mind I was part of a which was a whole day’s debate, which I was granted. cross-party delegation to the Committee, and that We would not have had a debate like that on a every single Welsh Member of Parliament had substantive motion—which went through supported the proposal for a Welsh Day debate, which unanimously—without the support of the Committee. had been held in the House of Commons since 1944. I am very satisfied with the way in which the It was one of the days that was supposedly Committee works, and the results it is producing, but surrendered to the Backbench Committee to come it has thrown up some weak spots that I know you within their purview. are addressing. My point had been that I thought it should have been a matter for Government time, and I think the Leader Q22 Nic Dakin: Dominic, did you want to add of the House has indicated that he thinks that should anything? be the case. But the problem we faced was that they Mr Raab: My experience is that I secured three didn’t have enough time. They just didn’t have enough debates: on prisoner voting, on the Sergei Magnitsky days to give us. It was quite hard, particularly for law and on extradition. Obviously the key issue is Members of Parliament who are not Welsh, to supply and demand. There is no point in complaining understand why it was that we wanted this, bearing in endlessly that the Committee has not let such-and- mind that devolution had occurred. I will not go such get there and make their debate. My experience through the pros and cons of why in fact we thought is it has been very well chaired and very pragmatically it was necessary, but on the second occasion the chaired, which is important. I am a big fan of the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o001_th_12-05-23 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Ev 6 Procedure Committee: Evidence

23 May 2012 Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, Richard Ottaway MP and Mr Dominic Raab MP

Committee, and I think its current chair has done a Assisted suicide was very different. I actually came very good job. with a request that perhaps a month be given before What has not quite filtered out, at least in my granting the debate and the actual timing of the experience, is what it takes to secure a Chamber debate, because something like this, which is debate. In my experience, they want three things: essentially conscience territory, the various sides of topicality; they want the issue to be timely, and they the argument wanted to marshal their forces, their want it to be influential. That effectively means a arguments, lobby MPs—sorry about that, guys—and prescriptive and substantive motion that can command generally ensure that a proper debate on a moral issue, cross-party support because whichever side you are which was a concern to millions of people, was on, what the Whips do in one party is very influential properly conducted. They accepted that. Their in terms of what the others do. If you can manage to problem was that they didn’t have a date to offer me, get cross-party support, which secures a free vote, you other than that they knew they were going to have are on to something. That is the Committee’s appetite, the adjournment debate before the Easter recess. They and I think parliamentarians and backbenchers are knew that they had the last day before the Easter starting to figure that out. recess and that was the only date they had available a I would be cautious on one point, which has already month out. The debate, well, it was terribly well been mentioned, and that is the suggestion by some attended. In fact, they had to put a four-minute time that there ought to be automaticity between e-petitions limit on by the end. But there is no doubt about it, a and securing a debate. We should be very careful lot of people the night before were thinking of the about that. We are elected representatives and the Easter recess and left, so it might have even been Backbench Committee is important for that purpose, better attended still if it hadn’t been jammed up but also for issues that actually don’t get a lot of against a recess. populist attention, so I would be quite careful on that I would like to see power given to the Backbench front and I actually think it is maturing quite well. Business Committee—perhaps not for every debate— to give one or two fixed dates out in the future where Q23 Nic Dakin: Thank you very much for that, all some of the debates that need preparation can be three of you. Caroline Lucas has suggested the allocated to that slot. Backbench Business Committee should make its Mr Raab: My experience was I think just shy of a decisions in public or have its decision making week, which is the least notice I have been given. It published. Are you attracted to that idea, or do you was significantly longer on prisoner voting and I think extradition. It always depends on what else is in the think that is not helpful? pipeline, both for the Committee and also the Richard Ottaway: One of the times I appeared here— Government’s time. I don’t really understand the they hear the evidence in public—I was rather mechanics behind it, but they have always seemed to disappointed that diary columnists trivialised the be waiting on a decision from others in order to be whole thing. It appeared as a rather silly diary piece able to allocate time. by Quentin Letts the next day. I think select committees at times do have to meet in private to Q26 Mr Nuttall: One of the problems is this degree make sure that that sort of behaviour doesn’t go on. of uncertainty. Therefore, would you be in favour of Paul Murphy: I agree with that. You have to have a having some level of certainty, either in the form of frank discussion of the pros and cons of different some of the days being fixed, a fixed day every week, cases, and to do that in public I think would be or at least some of the days? For example, we know impossible. that private Members’ bills are always on a Friday, Mr Raab: I agree. but certain days could be listed at the start of a parliamentary session. Q24 Mr Nuttall: All of you have been successful, Mr Raab: From my point of view, the only thing I between you, on seven occasions in securing debates, would be careful with is that if we dump them all on most of which were in the Chamber. Could you put Thursday afternoons, we will get no one voting for on the record, in respect of those debates, how much motions, and that would be my nervousness. So it notice were you given by the Backbench Business depends what the price of that certainty is. Committee of the date on which your successful debates were going to be held? Q27 John Hemming: There is obviously an issue Paul Murphy: I think a week or so, but there was no about motions and amendments to motions. The problem. I missed the boat once on the second Government has said that backbenchers should be occasion when I got it wrong, but that wasn’t the expected to table motions three days in advance. Committee’s fault; it was mine. There is then the question as to what amendments are tabled and the timing of those, and there is a Q25 Mr Nuttall: Did you think that was sufficient? subsequent question, which is whether the Backbench Paul Murphy: Yes. Business Committee should try to offer advice to the Mr Nuttall: You thought a week was sufficient? Speaker as to which amendments it would wish to see Paul Murphy: Yes. selected, whether it should be entirely left to the Richard Ottaway: For World Service and European Speaker or whether it should be a decision of the Scrutiny of Defence and Foreign Policy, about a week, Backbench Business Committee. Starting with Paul, 10 days—I can’t remember offhand, but it was do you have any views on the question of motions and thereabouts—which was fine. amendments and the timings of those? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o001_th_12-05-23 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 7

23 May 2012 Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, Richard Ottaway MP and Mr Dominic Raab MP

Paul Murphy: Yes, I do. The difference between my selected by the Speaker to be put at the moment of request, Richard’s and Dominic’s was that mine was interruption. something that was simply asking for a debate to be reinstated because it had been a custom of the House Q28 John Hemming: So a programme motion of to debate those matters for 60 years. So there was some sort to make sure that those are all considered nothing new in it. The problem then with my first or proceeded with? attempt to get a debate was that we had to get a Richard Ottaway: A programme motion is a slightly motion. That was quite hard because the purpose of different point. If you have, say, two debates in a day, my colleagues from Wales appearing was that there you may stop the first one after three hours or was absolute unanimity among all Welsh Members of whatever. This is a procedural point on whether an Parliament, from all parties, that we wanted it. But amendment can be moved or not. then it became much more difficult to craft a motion that could command widespread support from among Q29 John Hemming: The procedural point is more the Members. For example, constitutional issues, about allowing more than one amendment to be which two years ago, or indeed one year ago, were a moved at once, so that all are voted on at the end of very significant part of the Government’s programme, bringing the substantive issue? obviously produced very different views among Welsh Richard Ottaway: Exactly. Members of Parliament as to what should be put into a motion. Happily, on the second occasion when we Q30 John Hemming: Dominic? were granted the day, we didn’t have one. It was Mr Raab: On that specific issue, from my own view simply that, “This House considers the matter of and my own experience, I don’t think that you need Wales”, or something like that; you know, Welsh the Backbench Committee to second-guess or business. So we did not have a motion upon which intervene on the question of amendments. I didn’t we voted in the end. It was as it always had been: have any amendments to the motions that we secured, basically, an adjournment debate where there is no and obviously the whole point is to try to craft your vote. But it gave the opportunity to Members of motion so it is substantive enough, but with enough Parliament from Wales to do what they had always quality and quantity of heavy-hitting support that you done, and that is to have the St David’s Day debate, repel all amendments. That was certainly the which happened to be on St David’s Day this year, psychology with which I approached it, and I tended that opportunity. But had a motion been required— to view all the amendments coming down as wrecking and we were thinking about it—we would have had amendments. But thankfully, we didn’t have any. some difficulty in introducing it. Richard Ottaway: On the assisted suicide debate, I Q31 Jacob Rees-Mogg: Mr Murphy, you have wanted to table the motion quite early. Because of the already mentioned the St David’s Day debate. Could way the order paper is set out, I think you can only we move on to the other set-piece debates and whether put it down about 36 hours in advance. So I wrote to the three of you feel that they ought to have special every MP saying, “This is what the motion is going consideration, perhaps be taken out of backbench time to be”. That is the way I got round it, so people knew and given back to Government time, or whether it is where the thrust of the argument was coming from. not a bad idea to allow the Backbench Business Two amendments were tabled to my motion, which Committee to decide which of the set-piece debates caused problems. One was toughening it up and one are going to be of interest and which ones may have was going off in a different direction. There is no need lost their historic significance? to go into the detail. I know the Speaker deliberated Paul Murphy: I think that there should be a number long and hard about which ones to select and in the of set-piece debates in Government time, because I end selected both of them without, I think, any advice think that puts even greater pressure on the Committee from the Backbench Business Committee. So it was to have to decide whether they stay with tradition or left entirely to him. whether they allow topics that are more current to be I am not convinced it would have made much debated in the way they have been. As I said earlier, difference if they had made an input on it. I don’t the Government is minded to put back the Welsh Day think they are any better qualified than the Speaker. debate in its former capacity. In fact, he is probably better qualified than them to Another one with which I was concerned: I was decide which amendments should be selected because chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee he understands the centre-of-gravity issues inside the for two years, and the ISC always had a debate in Chamber better than most. The difficulty came at the Government time. But again, it seems that went back end of the debate because, if it is not Government to the Backbench Committee. business, and if an amendment is not put by the time There are certain things that ought to be a matter of limit it can’t be moved, and one of the amendments the annual parliamentary timetable, and I have given got pulled. But until that moment we had to contrive you two examples. The problem for both Government a finish where the debate voluntarily stopped. and the Committee is where do you stop in all that, Remember, we were on a four-minute time limit. It knowing that there is limited time? For instance, in voluntarily stopped about 20 minutes early so the first the next couple of weeks Laurence Robertson—who amendment could be put and voted on, and at 15 co-chairs the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly— minutes then allowed the second one at 6.55pm, and I will be making a request for a debate on the before the deadline. That was silly, and quite clearly I business of British-Irish relations, on the basis that the think reform is needed to allow all amendments Irish Parliament debated it last week and we want a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o001_th_12-05-23 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Ev 8 Procedure Committee: Evidence

23 May 2012 Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, Richard Ottaway MP and Mr Dominic Raab MP similar event to take place in our Parliament. Should and let all the days for the Committee be for that be out of backbench business—it is the only way backbench demands. we have to do it at the moment—or should it be some other opportunity that presents itself? So yes, I think Q35 Jacob Rees-Mogg: Mr Raab, you were saying there should be set-piece debates, which would then that there are three basic conditions for a backbench give the Backbench Committee more time for other debate, which the set-piece debates, by and large, do debates. not fulfil because they are important but they are not necessarily topical. Q32 Jacob Rees-Mogg: Richard or Dominic, do you Mr Raab: Yes. To be clear, I think if we are going to want to add anything? squeeze the time of the Backbench Committee to Richard Ottaway: I agree with that completely. The make a place for the select committee debates, then criteria for a Backbench Business Committee debate they need to have extra time to allow that to take should be that the subject that would not normally place. Otherwise you will end up with fewer debates come up, and so the Welsh Affairs, Intelligence and or—even worse—one-hour debates or one-and-a-half- Security, some of the Women’s Day debate, or hour debates; quite difficult for enough colleagues to whatever, that should not come out of the Backbench get in. Business Committee’s time. Q36 Mr Gray: Select committee debates, that is Q33 Jacob Rees-Mogg: Do you agree? slightly different. What we were talking about here Mr Raab: Broadly, yes. It may be a technical was that in the old days there were five defence distinction without a difference, but I would rather see debates a year. There were two or three debates before the Backbench Committee given more time than us European Councils, there was a half-day for the start shovelling our debates into Government time, Attendance Committee, there was a Welsh debate, and mainly because I think that distinction is quite so on. A certain number of set-piece debates always important. occurred every year—I actually wanted to move on— and I think actually what has happened is the Q34 Jacob Rees-Mogg: If you did this would you Government has dumped those into backbench have to take the 11 days of set-piece debates away business time. Very convenient for them. They don’t from the days of debate given to the Backbench have to worry about all those things now and, if indeed they were to continue, it eats into otherwise Business Committee, or is it trying to get the potentially trouble-free backbench business. Government to give up more of its own time? I wanted to move on to what you mentioned in Paul Murphy: I suspect it is asking the Government passing, Dominic, namely select committees. Richard, to give up more of its own time. I don’t think there it is helpful that coincidentally you are also a select is any great problem this year. We have been having committee chairman. In the old days you bid for a committee stages of bills, which would normally go day’s debate on whatever the topic might be, and if to a committee on the floor of the House. Frankly, if the Government felt that way inclined they did it. But there isn’t sufficient Government business to make up I think you are right that what has happened is that each week then, basically, that should be plugged by there are now incredibly few main day debates on backbench time. I know that is quite difficult, because select committee reports. Do you think that is right? you have to deal with these things sometimes on a Do you think the select committee reports should be weekly basis. But I believe that, in reality, there is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee? more Government time than Governments make out, Should they be considered, perhaps, in Westminster and I say this as a former Minister. Hall? We have increased the powers of select The other issue, so far as this is concerned, is that committees through elections. What do we now do ultimately we shouldn’t reduce the number of about giving select committee reports an opportunity backbench days, simply because we have taken out to be properly debated, either in the Chamber or in the set pieces. In other words, let’s say it has taken Westminster Hall? out 30 days and they say, “We’ll have them back in Paul Murphy: The big issue is actually Westminster Government time and you can have 25 days”, there Hall: whether there could be more debates or more still has to be the 30 days for the backbench and these time in Westminster Hall, full stop. Whether they should be extra. Interestingly, when we were applying could start on a Monday maybe, I don’t know, or what on both occasions for a debate in backbench time for opportunities there might be. Of course, the difficulty Welsh matters, the Secretary of State for Wales wrote is that everybody wants their debate to be on the floor a letter to the Committee saying, “Please can we have of the House, as we did, because that had been the some time for a Welsh debate?” whereas on previous tradition for the Welsh Day debate, and indeed we occasions that would have been Government time. ended up with that. Otherwise I think we would have Richard Ottaway: In time terms it won’t make much been satisfied-ish if we had had it in a Westminster difference, but I don’t think the Committee should Hall context. But things like select committee reports have to be put in a position where it has to decide could well be debated in Westminster Hall, if whether to have a debate on the Intelligence and Westminster Hall had more time. The danger is that if Security Committee’s annual report or, say, reform of you try to take away the opportunity Members have pubs or something. That is putting the Committee in for having adjournment debates in Westminster Hall, a rather difficult position, being forced to prioritise by then replacing the Backbench Business Committee, here, and I think it would make sense to take this out I think there is a great row coming up there as well. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o001_th_12-05-23 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 9

23 May 2012 Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, Richard Ottaway MP and Mr Dominic Raab MP

So you need to extend the time at Westminster Hall. Richard Ottaway: It could do. The Liaison Committee But certainly I think select committees should have might get a bit protective about it, but I am sure good their chance to have their reports debated. men and true could resolve something on that front.

Q37 Chair: That is very helpful to us. Just to make Q40 Mr Gray: Can I just come back to what I was sure we have this right, you would not have objected saying a moment ago on select committee reports? If to a debate on Welsh affairs in Westminster Hall if we are—as we are doing—making select committees that was all you were offered, in effect? very much more important than they used to be, much Paul Murphy: In effect, yes. I think we actually said more powerful and much more forceful, is there not a that. People, including myself—who were speaking risk that at the same time, because of this procedural on behalf of Welsh Members of Parliament on the matter, we are giving less time to select committee particular day—said that we wouldn’t have preferred reports being debated on the floor of the House of it, but had there been no other option, of course, we Commons? In other words, is there not a risk that we would have settled for it in Westminster Hall. But very are giving them muscle on the one hand but on the often the topics themselves can determine whether other hand, because they are competing with much they should be in Westminster Hall or on the floor of sexier and much more topical matters, you don’t get the House, on the basis of what interest there is in it. a debate on some obscure transport matter that is, For example, Richard’s debate on assisted suicide frankly, just as important but can’t compete with would have been wholly inappropriate in Westminster circus animals? Hall, because there were so many people who wanted Mr Raab: My own view is that is an inherent risk in to attend. all backbench debates, as well as select committee Chair: Nic Dakin, do you want to pursue this further? report debates, and of course the overlap is not quite so clear-cut. The extradition debate I secured was off Q38 Nic Dakin: Yes. How can we encourage the back of the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ backbenchers to view Westminster Hall debates as report, and the motion referred directly to its having equal status to Chamber debates, or is that recommendations. I don’t think colleagues should be unrealistic? sniffy about Westminster Hall, but the key Richard Ottaway: No, I don’t think it is unrealistic. If difference—what is precious about the Chamber—is I just deal with an anomaly here, and that is that the the ability to vote. I think the Backbench Committee Liaison Committee gets a quota of time in well understands that and people who apply need to Westminster Hall for select committee debates. For understand that. Of course, in at least two of the three example, when we come back from the recess, the debates I had, we had three preliminary debates in Foreign Affairs Committee has a slot to debate our Westminster Hall, and you then used those to report on piracy off the coast of Somalia. That will be demonstrate the support for a Chamber debate on a quite useful, because I want to pin a minister down prescriptive motion. on a particular issue, on the guidance given to putting You are right. You have to be very careful you are not armed forces on to British ships, and it does not need robbing Peter to pay Paul. I don’t really have a clear to be on the floor of the Chamber to actually pin him view of select committee versus the backbenchers’ down in a debate. ability to go to the Committee, but I think you would I just received a phone call a couple of weeks ago. need to look quite carefully at the options to see quite The Liaison Committee has a list of people who have where you would be losing time. The select put in debates that they want. I put some things in committees are very formal. I like the idea that in the months ago and have never heard any more. You don’t Backbench Committee any Member of the House can know when it is coming. You just suddenly get a curry and cajole enough support on an issue to take it phone call or an email saying, “There is a slot coming to the Chamber and get a vote. up in Westminster Hall”. It is not satisfactory, but what the Committee has is the chance for topicality at Q41 Mr Gray: Yes, that is certainly a very good the BBC World debate. We were on in under two thing. That is precisely my point—that because of that weeks, with some effect. There is no easy way of ability other things, which are very important but dull saying to colleagues, “Westminster Hall is equally as or not topical, will be precluded. They will land up attractive as the Chamber”, because it isn’t. But if the with lots things that are very important to mindset is right, that you are trying to get something backbenchers, and then they can say, “Yes, we must out of a minister, it should be impressed on them that debate that”, as a result of which some frightfully Westminster Hall is just as effective—arguably, more worthy but utterly dull thing from the Transport Select effective—than the Chamber, because it has a slightly Committee will not be heard of again. more informal atmosphere. Mr Raab: Let me put the counterpoint to that. I don’t disagree with you, James, but let me put the Q39 Chair: I will come back to you on that. But can counterpoint. First, the select committees churn out I just ask Richard—arising out of what he said—if reports at a rate of knots, and not all of them are we are looking at modernising and streamlining this necessarily worthy but unnoticed. Also some of the procedure, surely the role of the Liaison Committee Backbench Committee debates—like the Sergei here could be given over to the Backbench Business Magnitsky debate—aren’t populist issues, so if you Committee, so one body deals with all allocations of craft your support for your application for a time? backbench debate, it doesn’t have to be just populist cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o001_th_12-05-23 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Ev 10 Procedure Committee: Evidence

23 May 2012 Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, Richard Ottaway MP and Mr Dominic Raab MP issues, but that is where my reticence about petitions Committee report, one would like it to be in the comes in. Chamber. Paul Murphy: I also think that there is an onus then on the members of the Backbench Committee to work Q44 Chair: My point is this. If, in Standing Orders, out themselves which is more likely to be a debate for you prescribe a select committee report can only be Westminster Hall or the Chamber, and most of the launched in the Chamber, you are ruling out the time you could probably work that out quite easily. opportunity of some perhaps still worthy but less If I might say, just as an aside there—I touched on it important reports being moved to Westminster Hall. I earlier—there is also a case for the international would like Westminster Hall to be one of the options bodies of the House, the CPA, the IPU, and, as I said the Backbench Business Committee has, and I am just earlier, the British-Irish Parliamentary Association, to seeking your agreement to that suggestion. have an opportunity to be able to put their case for Richard Ottaway: I can see the logic or the premise debates, which could include debates in Westminster that you base your question on and it is unarguable. Hall, because what do you do if you have a serious Of course you would like to do it in the Chamber, but issue that you think should be debated? At the if Westminster Hall was available that would be quite moment the mechanism is through the Backbench sensible. We are not talking here about a debate on a Committee, but it is not quite used as much by those report. We are talking about statements and it has a organisations as it is for individual Members of the degree of immediacy. I think it would have looked a House. I think by extending the Westminster Hall side bit odd if the phone-hacking report had been dealt of things then the opportunity there would be made with in Westminster Hall. as well. Richard Ottaway: You are making a very good point Q45 Chair: I agree, but I think you would also agree that some very worthy things do sometimes get with me there are many that could quite properly be pushed to one side by some of the more livewire sent to Westminster Hall. issues. I have found that foreign affairs, because Richard Ottaway: Yes. people don’t debate it much in their day-to-day lives, often attracts a lot of attention. Dominic is talking Q46 Chair: Do either of you want to comment on about his debate on extradition, there is prisoner that? voting in the European Court of Human Rights, and Paul Murphy: I agree entirely. The only issue I think they have debates on Afghanistan, human rights we ought to always bear in mind is that if more and reports. These are things that people do get quite more select committees are asking for their reports to interested in, and it would not surprise me if that had be debated—and I see nothing wrong in that—then priority over health services in Wiltshire. A very there has to be extra time, otherwise you are then worthy and important matter, health services in taking away the time for individual Members of Wiltshire, but I hope you get my point. Parliament or groups of MPs to put forward these very important issues that the Backbench Committee has agreed to in the last year or two. Q42 Chair: Richard, I would like to raise an issue with you, as you are a senior member of the Liaison Q47 Chair: Committee and have been singing the praises of Thank you. I think Roger Gale wants to take us back to the question of business motions, but, Westminster Hall. The Liaison Committee have before I call Sir Roger, did you want to say anything? written to this Committee asking us to back a change Richard Ottaway: Going back to the point I was in our Standing Orders, so that select committee making a couple of minutes ago about the Liaison reports could be launched on the floor of the House. Committee, it already gets slots in Westminster Hall My difficulty with that is it seems to be rather specific. for debating select committee reports. Shouldn’t we be saying that there ought to be a mechanism for launching select committee reports Q48 Sir Roger Gale: I have been listening to all this orally, and then leave it to the Backbench Business with a growing sense of alarm, because this Committee to decide whether, indeed, it should be on Committee has yet to publish its own report into the floor of the House or in Westminster Hall? sitting hours in the calendar. That is in draft form at Richard Ottaway: Yes, that has to be at their the moment, and I certainly don’t intend to quote from discretion. There has been a bit of a mini-trial on it, but I do rather wish that we had taken this evidence statements about select committee reports, where they before we had got to where we have got with that. have taken a day and carved it up. I may be wrong. I I want to make a statement and then ask you to thought I read it in their report. I personally wasn’t in comment on it, having listened very carefully to what the Chamber when it happened. If you are going to you have said and to what colleagues have said around go down that road, it obviously goes to the timetable the table. First of all, there is an assumption that there motion, the point that all the Standing Orders need to isn’t enough time. That can’t be right. There is oodles be revised in order to facilitate this. of parliamentary time if we choose to use it, and the way that that is allocated is a matter for discussion Q43 Chair: You would have no difficulty with between colleagues. But the idea that there isn’t leaving the final choice of venue to the Backbench enough time to do these things, unless Members want Business Committee on a case-by-case basis? to rush off to their families or go down to the Richard Ottaway: I wouldn’t. I would have to say, constituency and deal with cracked paving stones, is though, if we had all sweated blood over a Select nonsense. There is enough time. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o001_th_12-05-23 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 11

23 May 2012 Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, Richard Ottaway MP and Mr Dominic Raab MP

Second, to take a point that James Gray made, there Richard Ottaway: Yes. Roger, you and I and the used to be a number of fixed debates. Nobody has Chairman are a generation elected in 1983, when you done a flow chart on any of this. Nobody has said used to sit until 10 o’clock Thursday nights, there should be a foreign affairs debate, at least one; Government business was taken on Fridays and there should be an armed forces debate; there should midnight was an early night, and it has been truncated be a Welsh and—at the moment, while we still have for the convenience of Members. Can I just point out Scottish Members—a Scottish debate, a Northern to you—you were talking about some MPs wanting to Ireland debate, and a number of other fixed points. nip down to their constituencies to deal with paving Then surely there should be a fixed and pre- stones—a fifth of Parliament has to go home every determined number of Backbench Committee debates, night because they are given no expenditure to stay in which ought to be allocated on the basis of urgency town. Mr Knight is well aware of— rather than some sort of Buggins turning up, saying, Chair: I hesitate to interrupt you in full flow, Richard, “Oh, I applied for this four weeks ago”, and, “Please but it would be helpful if you could relate this to the can I have a go at it?” So there should be a greater Backbench Business Committee review. sense of topicality about those debates. Richard Ottaway: I just thought I would give it a shot, Then there are the select committees, which we all on hearing you hadn’t finalised your report on sitting recognise are important. If you go to Government hours. Otherwise, Roger, I agree with the points that business, secretaries of state have to bid for you are making. The focus should move towards Government bills, and somebody up there decides urgency and topicality rather than the set-piece which bills are going to go into the Queen’s Speech debates. and which Departments have failed and don’t get their legislation. It does seem to me that every select Q50 John Hemming: Coming in on that, because I committee ought to be entitled to a debate on the floor see a slightly different picture of that, we are given of the House, and it should be surely for that select sitting hours and all that. We do have a limit. committee to decide, in terms of its own priorities, Chair: I do not really want to do sitting hours. which of its issues it wants debated on the floor of the John Hemming: Yes. On the assumption that House and which other issues can then be left to be obviously, if you sit 24 hours a day, seven days a debated in Westminster Hall. But it seems to me as week, you have no real limit on parliamentary time. though we have the cart in front of the horse, and But given the sitting hours, we have a limit on what we ought to be determining is what we want to parliamentary time and I want to just postulate the debate over what period of time, then allocate it and question. For instance, if you have a select committee meeting at which other honourable Members can turn then let the Government work out how much longer up, speak and be transcribed, and which the Minister we need to sit into the recess if necessary to get attends to consider a select committee report, we are Government business. potentially extending proceedings in Parliament so Chair: Your question is? that—much like some of the European Scrutiny Sir Roger Gale: My question is: I want Mr Murphy, Committees and various other committees where other Mr Ottaway and Mr Raab to comment on that. Members can comment—it is perhaps a way of Chair: To comment on your statement. Okay. finding extra time for the discussion of select Paul Murphy: You are absolutely right; ideally, there committee reports by those who are not on that select should be sufficient time. I remember the first time we committee. Do you think that potentially has merit? applied for the Welsh Day debate we didn’t get it, Paul Murphy: Yes. There is no reason why simply on the basis that they had run out of days. I Westminster Hall debate shouldn’t go on for much got the impression on both occasions I went before longer than they are at the moment, going on into the the Committee is that they were in a bit of a quandary evening to accommodate this. Another issue could be about how many days they had left, and they were why, for example on Wednesday, when we formally saying, “Oh well, we’re not sure yet. They haven’t finish sitting at 7 pm, you can’t have another three told us how many days are left. So we’re not quite hours that is devoted to backbench business as well. I sure whether we can give you anything”. I think the don’t know, but those are opportunities that I think point you are making is that there should be greater should be there. certainty on the number of days available throughout a parliamentary year, so they wouldn’t get into that Q51 Sir Roger Gale: Coming back to the mundane position. It looked as though they were almost living business of the mechanics of the Backbench debates, from day to day almost, or week to week, in terms of at the moment the Backbench Committee doesn’t have what they could allocate because they didn’t know, a the power to table business motions to organise those few weeks away, what was going to happen. Of debates. Should they? course, that always happens to a certain extent with Richard Ottaway: Yes. For the reasons I set out Government business, but that shouldn’t happen if, at earlier, I think they should allow amendments to be the beginning of a parliamentary year, so many days put and, if they have more than one debate in the day, are allocated specifically and firmly for backbench they need to have a cut-off point at which a motion business, and I don’t think that has happened so far. can be put if necessary. That is the impression I gained about it. Q52 Sir Roger Gale: Does everybody agree on that? Q49 Chair: Richard or Dominic, do you want to add Paul Murphy: Generally speaking, yes, I do agree. anything to that? But I do think there are occasions—like the one I cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o001_th_12-05-23 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Ev 12 Procedure Committee: Evidence

23 May 2012 Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, Richard Ottaway MP and Mr Dominic Raab MP applied for—where we certainly couldn’t get a motion automaticity or more prescriptive rules on issues for that was appropriate. We went back to the old idea of debate in particular select committees? I think there being effectively an adjournment debate that gave us must be a degree to which you cannot legislate out of the opportunity to talk about Welsh issues. I don’t the human judgment on the relative value of different think we should be too prescriptive on that, and I think debates, different motions and different issues and even though perhaps—I don’t know—80% of the time select committees. For me personally, I would err on there should be a motion, there should be some the side of leaving the Backbench Committee with opportunity for there to be simply a general debate more discretion and less prescriptive rules. Select on something that hasn’t had the opportunity to be committee reports are important, but they normally debated elsewhere. stand on their merits and you can use them to get Backbench Committee debates and they are powerful Q53 Sir Roger Gale: So if we got to the situation enough in and as of their own right. So I would just where there was a guillotine to allow a second debate be careful about being too prescriptive on any rules to take place, we then come to the subject of the vote that were set down. itself. Of course, not all Backbench motions are demanded out. Bernard Jenkin suggested that the Q54 Sir Roger Gale: But by implication they are procedure used in Opposition days, which is where not topical? the substantive motion is taken ﬁrst, should apply to Mr Raab: Lots of backbench debates aren’t either. Backbench days, so that if there is a helpful Sir Roger Gale: I think they should be. Government backbencher’s wrecking amendment on Mr Raab: What I am saying is that that question, that a motion the substantive motion will be taken ﬁrst, relative value between things that are not particularly and only if it was defeated would the wrecking motion populist but important, is inherently subjective. then be taken. Any views on that? Therefore, I am just a bit nervous—a personal view— Paul Murphy: I think it is sensible. about being overly prescriptive about the balance. Mr Raab: Yes. I think the motion of the backbench Chair: Gentlemen, thank you for your time today. Member proposing is sensible. Your contribution to our deliberations has been Richard Ottaway: I agree. invaluable. If after today you think of something that Mr Raab: Can I answer an earlier question, Mr Chair, you wish you had raised but did not raise, please do about whether there ought to be some kind of feel free to drop me a line. Thank you very much. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o002_th_12-06-13 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 13

Wednesday 13 June 2012

Members present: Mr Greg Knight (Chair)

Karen Bradley Tom Greatrex Jenny Chapman John Hemming Nic Dakin Mr David Nuttall Sir Roger Gale Jacob Rees-Mogg Mr James Gray ______

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Natascha Engel MP, Chair, Backbench Business Committee, Jane Ellison MP, member, Backbench Business Committee, and Ian Mearns MP, member, Backbench Business Committee, gave evidence.

Q55 Chair: Welcome to this afternoon’s public political parties, but I see it the other way round. I see session of the Procedure Committee, in which we are them as only backbenchers who will never have the looking into the workings of the Backbench Business opportunity to be frontbenchers and therefore I would Committee. Thank you, Natascha, Ian and Jane for really welcome their representation on the Backbench coming along and being willing to share your thoughts Business Committee. with us. Before we turn to questions, would any of Chair: Thank you for that. you like to make an opening statement? Natascha Engel: I have submitted very late in the day Q58 Tom Greatrex: Although I appreciate the point a short piece of paper with two points on it about e- that Natascha Engel is making, I would point out that petitions and the representation of Members from the in terms of both of the nations, there are considerable minority parties on the Backbench Business numbers of Members from other parties who represent Committee. Those are the two most vexatious issues those as well. So the fact that you have representation for me on the Committee, but I imagine that those from only English constituencies is not necessarily issues will be touched on during the questions. I am anything to do with the minority parties, particularly quite happy to leave that until the end if you like. in Scotland and Wales. Jane Ellison: Just to support the Chairman’s point, in Q56 Chair: We probably will not dwell too much on terms of issues to be debated it would give a different e-petitions, because as you know, we have looked into perspective to have minority parties, because there this in depth and have made recommendations, which might be issues that just do not really feature on the you broadly support. The problem now is not whether radar of backbenchers from the main opposition it relates to solutions not being identified; it relates to parties and from Government parties. the Government not having yet implemented what we Chair: Do you want to add anything to that, Ian? have recommended. Ian Mearns: I don’t think that I need to, Chair. Natascha Engel: Indeed. Q59 Mr Gray: I entirely endorse what you say—it Q57 Chair: But perhaps, in opening, you could tell is a very good idea—but none the less, is there not a us, for the benefit of the Committee, a little bit about difficulty, particularly with the Ulster Unionists and your view on minority party representation on the the SDLP, that either they will be on it, in which case Committee. that question may dominate the business, or if the Natascha Engel: One of the problems has been the Unionists are strong, the SDLP will be upset and vice unfairness in the way in which Members are selected versa, and either way they will take up a slot that for the Backbench Business Committee, which makes would be otherwise used by the Scot Nats or Plaid it impossible for somebody from a minority party Cymru? Just one slot for the minority parties is an even to put their name forward, so there is effectively awkwardness, is it not? no place for somebody from a minority party, because Natascha Engel: There are a couple of issues around you have to get nominations from 10 people from that. The Government argue that one slot extra on the your own side. Actually, now, with the change in the Committee filled by minority parties would lose the Standing Orders, there are party elections for Government majority on the Backbench Business members of the Committee, so there is literally no Committee, which is, because of coalition place for minority party Members. Government, not currently the case. We have four By coincidence, the Committee entirely comprises Conservatives, one Liberal, two Labour and one Members who represent constituencies in England, Labour Chair. If you add one minority party member, and this is the second Session in which that is the you would still not lose the majority. That would not case. The minority parties tend to represent the nations necessarily be the case if you had non-coalition of the UK, and I just think that they would add Government. You could increase the size of the something to the Backbench Business Committee Backbench Business Committee, which I would not which, at the moment, we lack. I think also that they have a problem with, to deal with that point. On the are supreme backbenchers. There is an argument to specific issue that you raise about the minority parties say that they are all frontbenchers in their own that have the greatest number dominating, the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o002_th_12-06-13 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Ev 14 Procedure Committee: Evidence

13 June 2012 Natascha Engel MP, Jane Ellison MP and Ian Mearns MP minority parties, as I understand it—I have met up one. Because it is on a hand-to-mouth basis, the time with them—are quite happy, in the way that they do available has to fit what is brought to us, but the with other select committees that they are co-opted amount of demand absolutely exceeds the supply. on to, particularly subject group select committees, to That has been particularly true at times of dearth—for agree among themselves a person who they would example, when you have the Budget, which is a good nominate on to the Backbench Business Committee. example of where very little time is available and given to us by Government. We have to fit what we Q60 Chair: But under the new amended have with the representations that are brought to us. arrangements, they can attend the Committee. Why is Jane Ellison: If you looked at the bids that we were that not proving to be enough? Are they boycotting left with at the end of the session, you might think, the Committee? “Well, you got through nearly all of it,” but of course, Natascha Engel: They are effectively boycotting, for some missed their moment of opportunity because understandable reasons. They have been given topicality had passed. I think one of the great strengths observer status. They have no voting rights and they of the Committee has been the ability to deliver are not full participating members of the Committee. topical debates, so being able to schedule a cycling In reality, it would not make a difference, because we debate during the Times cycling campaign fortnight, do not have votes on the Committee. Like most other or whatever, gave it added topicality and generated select committees, we work on consensus. We would enormous interest from Members. There are times very much like them, in any way, shape or form, to when the application will effectively just fall by the make the case that they add value to the Committee. wayside, because the moment has gone. I totally understand, however, why they are boycotting Our debates have been greatly enhanced when we at the moment, on the grounds that they want to be have had any sort of ability to plan ahead. Assisted full voting members with a full place on the dying is the most obvious example, where we felt that Committee. it was a very important topic that many constituents would want to communicate with Members about. We Q61 Sir Roger Gale: If the members of the minority were also aware that more of that communication parties collectively are willing to sort out their own might, by the nature of the age profile, be by letter business and do a deal and nominate somebody, what rather than e-mail. On that occasion, we scheduled it is the objection with that? by rejigging the last day of term, as it were. We were Chair: Can you tell us who you are addressing that able to plan nearly a month ahead, and the debate was question to? greatly enhanced by that. There will be other Natascha Engel: I know; it is rhetorical, is it not? examples where we would like to be able to do that Sir Roger Gale: It is rhetorical. I am asking the and put on a set piece debate with enough notice, so Committee, I think. The Chairman of the Committee that people can really participate, and Members can has told us that they are willing to do this. research and make thoughtful contributions. Mr Gray: It is a question of Government majority. Sir Roger Gale: But that can be arranged after the Q63 Chair: Is it not inevitable, however much time next election if there is a change in Government you get, that demand will always outstrip supply? majority. Natascha Engel: I think that is absolutely the case. We were quite surprised, actually; I thought e- Q62 Chair: I think it would need—I stand to be petitions would overwhelm us and swamp the corrected—a change to Standing Orders, because it Committee for a time. That has not happened, and on would breach the proportionality rule on the the whole, we still have things that have overhung and Committee. That is the problem, I think. It is are on our list. They have been parked, and are something that we have the power to recommend and looking for slots to be debated in, but on the whole when we have heard all the evidence we may decide we have managed, and as Jane said, some debates to do so. Can I take you on to the question of the time have just lost their topicality and other avenues have given to you to allocate? Do you think that the amount been found for debating. It has dealt with it by itself, of time that you are given overall in a session is but it is quite an organic process. broadly reasonable? The business managers have a grid for a period of a Natascha Engel: It is a very complex question, which session, and they can slot things in over what is I hope my colleagues will help me with. The questions effectively a year. We just do not work like that; it is of time and the amount of time cannot be taken in much more organic, so we have managed to fix things isolation from how that time is divided up. At the in the best way that we can, but that has led to a lot moment, the way that the Committee works is that we of disappointment from Members who have not been are allocated days in the Chamber—Westminster Hall given the time to debate. Most of those have been set is organised slightly differently—on a very ad hoc piece debates. basis. I, as the Chair, am told before the Committee Ian Mearns: I think there was concern at the outset, meets on a Tuesday at 1 o’clock by the business when the whole question of e-petitions was handed to managers whether there is a day available in the us to deal with, that it could in essence be a hostage following weeks. We work provisionally on two to fortune. A number of us saw a situation where the weeks ahead and definitely on one week ahead. It is amount of e-petitions coming to us with over 100,000 that kind of arrangement—the same way as the House signatures could escalate. We currently have two on works. We take representation from Members on a the stocks that have over 140,000 signatures and are Tuesday lunchtime and we can fill a slot if we have awaiting a slot in which to be debated, if there is cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o002_th_12-06-13 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 15

13 June 2012 Natascha Engel MP, Jane Ellison MP and Ian Mearns MP enough interest from Members. We have about Ian Mearns: Not being Scottish, but being one of the another four that have in excess of 50,000 signatures closest people to Scotland geographically, it is a three- and are waiting to grow out there in the ether, in the e- hour trip home. I quite often have things scheduled on world. I think that it would be too easy for determined Thursday nights, and they are scheduled weeks and individuals to wrest control and begin things that weeks in advance. The Backbench Business could grow quite easily. I do not think it is too difficult Committee necessarily, because of the allocation of to get 100,000 signatures on an e-petition, if you word time and when the time is allocated, is determining it correctly in the first place. that these things will take place only 10 days in advance. So there are tensions in trying to sort out our Q64 Nic Dakin: Would you favour allocating a set diaries, particularly when you have long travels to get day each week for backbench business? home, and the Scots are even worse. Natascha Engel: I have to speak in a personal capacity here, because I am not sure whether the Q67 Nic Dakin: Are you arguing, Natascha, for Committee is of one mind about a set day. That set greater certainty about the weeks in which days will day would almost certainly be a Thursday, and I am fall? Perhaps they can’t always be every week, but if not sure whether that is something we would you know that in week x, week y or week z there will particularly want. What would help would be to know be time for a debate, that would assist your planning that there will be a day every week for us to have a and managing of business? backbench debate. We could then say to Members, Natascha Engel: Yes. If we look at the standard “Okay, the day that will be allocated as a backbench parliamentary year, there are 35 sitting weeks, and we day in week x will be for your debate”, because a lot have 35 days allocated to us, of which 27 are in the of the way that the Backbench Business Committee Chamber. So that is 27 of 35, which is almost a day a works on a day-to-day basis is negotiating with week. Understanding that around Budget time there Government in terms of time: “It would be good to are different flash points and bottlenecks in the have a debate on assisted dying,” for example. That Government’s timetabling, we should be able to do was going to be a very high-profile debate, and having that. a Monday or a Tuesday, or even a Wednesday, would Also, it is important to remember that we have only be beneficial, rather than having a Thursday debate. If been in existence for less than two years. These are we were scheduling a general debate without a vote, very early stages, and not just for the Backbench obviously a Thursday would be quite suitable. So if Business Committee. Our relationship with there were more of that kind of negotiation between Government and the business managers is also in its the Backbench Business Committee and Government, early years. The success of the Committee has been in that would give both of us the flexibility to schedule establishing a working relationship with Government. around, but I do not think a set day would necessarily The Government understand that if they always give be the answer, because we would be given a Thursday. us Thursdays, that is the only time we can put on votable motions, which is not to their benefit or our benefit. The relationship evolves and, hopefully, if we Q65 Nic Dakin: Have most of the days that you have can establish something like an understanding that it been given been Thursdays, in practice? is one day a week so that we can say to people, “You Natascha Engel: Yes, almost all, apart from pre- have come with a debate, but it is definitely not until recess adjournment debates. September because you want to have a debate on Jane Ellison: And occasional half-day slots. I agree international day,” or something or other, that is with the Chairman. If we were just given a set something we can then take to Government and Thursday, that would be quite limiting. schedule in advance. Jane Ellison: Another example of that might be select Q66 Nic Dakin: Does that not relate to the current committee reports. A really welcome innovation has practice anyway? From what you have said, you are been that the Committee has given chairmen of select looking backwards; forwards could be pretty similar committees an opportunity on the floor of the House to backwards, but you would have an element of to introduce a report and speak to it, albeit usually for certainty. quite a brief period so far. Again, having some Jane Ellison: Yes, but it always being Thursdays does certainty, even about knowing there is a particular day not always enhance participation. Although most coming up, would allow for scheduling, because debates have been very well attended, they are not generally, the dates of those publications are known. always evenly attended. We have had quite a few in That would mean that we could have markers down Westminster Hall that have been 85% Government against that, rather than trying to slot things in at the speakers and very few from the Opposition, for last minute. example. I am sure that participation will vary between debates, but I think that Thursdays are a Q68 John Hemming: On the issue of days, correct difficult day if you don’t have to be there. For people me if I am wrong, but the debate on the EU with long-standing constituency engagements, the referendum was initially scheduled for a Thursday and reality is that some of them will go, even though it is was moved to a Monday because it suited the actually a topic they would really like to speak about. Government Whips to have the vote on that day. Do I know they should make that choice, but it is not you think it would be useful within a certain number always an easy choice for all Members. I think we of days to have some guarantee of non-Thursdays? have to accept the reality of that. Obviously there are pressures on people getting home cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o002_th_12-06-13 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Ev 16 Procedure Committee: Evidence

13 June 2012 Natascha Engel MP, Jane Ellison MP and Ian Mearns MP to their constituencies after a vote on a Thursday. at things on the day to see how many speakers have What pressures have there been on the Committee on put in for each debate and things have been divided Thursday debates? up in that way. I would be reluctant to start giving the Natascha Engel: Again, I go back to the point about Backbench Business Committee powers to put down this being an organic rather than a systematic way of business motions. Again, this is something that we scheduling. Yes, the Government does change its could ask the Government to do. It is not something mind. It has the power to do so. It preferred to have that we have ever done, so I would rather try that the debate and the vote sooner rather than later so it before giving us the power to do so. Actually, we moved the debate forward. It can. That is what could then start having business motions way beyond government is about. the moment of interruption, and I don’t know whether that is really what we are there to do. Really, what we Q69 John Hemming: Would it be nice if the want to do is to enable people to have their debates to Government offered some days earlier in the week— their satisfaction. If that is really not working, I would a limited number at least? look at a business motion and giving the Backbench Natascha Engel: The Committee ought to be led by Business Committee the power to have a business the debates that are brought to it. Each representation motion again. At the moment, it does not seem that is dramatically different from the previous one and broken; it is something that we might need to do a bit from the next. We try to schedule debates according better. This is a personal view, but at the moment I do to what is most appropriate. So sometimes we put not think we need the power to do so. them in Westminster Hall. Sometimes we put them on Jane Ellison: I would certainly agree. Of the various the floor of the House. Sometimes we can say to the challenges we encountered over the past two years, Government that as it is a really high-profile debate— that was probably the least of them. There has been this is why the relationship with the Government is so really good co-operation with the Speaker and Deputy important—everybody will want to be at it so it would Speakers. One of the really nice things is that there make sense if it could be scheduled on a non- has been real co-operation between Members. Very Thursday. Then it would be down to the Government often two lead Members with two debates on the same to participate in making sure that that is possible day would go off and have a sensible conversation rather than saying that there will be a set number of about how it was going to work. That is a level of Mondays or a set number of Wednesdays to welcome co-operation that one should recognise. counterbalance the Thursdays. We don’t know what is The only relatively minor point in terms of coming from week to week. programming is that it is less the length of the overall Ian Mearns: To add to that, Chair, I would concur debate and more within the debate—trying to with Natascha about the organic ad-hocery of it all. encourage frontbench speeches to be confined to the We have to deal, sometimes about a week or 10 days limits suggested by the Speaker. To see backbenchers in advance, with specific dates and allocate time for in a backbench debate being reduced to a four-minute those dates. Then on other occasions we are tipped off time limit almost immediately when you have had two about provisional dates which may or may not occur. 25-minute frontbench speeches is not the right way That ends up with us trying to tie it all together with round. as much common sense as we can muster and not a little frustration because we are sometimes tipped off Q71 Karen Bradley: Ian, do you want to add that dates will occur which subsequently do not anything? materialise. Ian Mearns: No, I’m fine, thank you. Natascha Engel: There is also the issue of having Q70 Karen Bradley: I want to turn to the powers of debate, vote, debate, vote, debate, vote at the end of the Committee. In your report you have invited us to the assisted dying debate. First, I don’t think that is consider whether the Committee should be given going to be a common occurrence. I would like to some limited powers to propose motions regulating have a look at whether there are other ways of putting the timing of debates. Could you give the Committee all the votes at the end or whether the only way of some examples from the previous session of when doing that is by having the power to have a business such a power would have been useful? motion or asking the Government to put one on. I Natascha Engel: This was something that cropped up can’t see the problem, if I went to the Leader of the in previous evidence that you received from Richard House to ask him to put down a business motion, Ottaway as well. There have been issues about the because it would enable us to do so. I don’t think there length of debates, then votes at the end and then going would be any particular problems with him to do that. into another debate. What we have ended up doing, even though we think it is something that would Q72 Karen Bradley: Why was that not done with warrant a whole day, is that, because we have not had the assisted dying debate? enough time, we have split the day in two and we Natascha Engel: We didn’t think about it. have had two half-day debates. That is why you have ended up with very tight speech limits—often just Q73 Karen Bradley: It was just that that was the four or five minutes. In those situations everything first time it happened. Bernard Jenkin has suggested comes very close together. that the procedure used for Opposition days should Again—this is speaking personally—I quite like the be applied to Backbench days, where the unamended fluid nature of the way things are and our relationship motion is voted on at the end. What is your view on with the Speaker has been very good. We have looked that? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o002_th_12-06-13 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 17

13 June 2012 Natascha Engel MP, Jane Ellison MP and Ian Mearns MP

Natascha Engel: Again, this is quite complex. I’m wasn’t ideal. I would say that that was an not against having that. The issue is that if a Member extraordinary situation. We would not normally be in comes to us for a debate and puts down a motion, a situation where we wanted to call our witnesses and then other Members put down amendments, then the our MPs— amendments are voted on before the main motion. The Ian Mearns: There is one person that I would like idea is that if the Government put up some people to to call. table what would effectively be a wrecking Natascha Engel: Who is that? amendment, whip everyone through the Lobby and Ian Mearns: I am a member of the Education the amendment stands, the main motion doesn’t even Committee and some of the biggest fun that I have is get voted on. The backbencher who has come to us when the Secretary of State comes along every now with the representation never even gets to vote on the and again. We do not have a Secretary of State, but motion on which they have organised the debate. That we do have the Leader of the House. I think it would has not really been an issue for us. be useful if the Backbench Business Committee could, Jane Ellison: Because the Speaker hasn’t taken any on occasion, have a chat with the Leader of the House. of the amendments. Jane Ellison: I agree with what Natascha says. One Natascha Engel: It is down to the Speaker to decide of the things that the Committee is setting out to do which amendments are selected and he has been very is highlight the expertise of backbenchers, so, in the careful. He has taken far greater care in the selection sense of calling for expert witnesses, we really see of amendments when it comes to backbench debates ourselves as facilitating backbenchers who are expert than he would otherwise do, so it has not been that and knowledgeable in an area to come forward and big an issue for us. If it does become an issue, it is bid for or lead a debate in that area of expertise. It is certainly something that I wouldn’t mind revisiting. In a particular strength of the Committee that we found terms of natural justice, if someone has made all the out so much more about some of the expertise that effort, done all the organising and come to the sits on the backbenches of the House of Commons, Committee and we have tabled a motion and it never and some of the insight and knowledge that, in gets voted on, that does seem wrong, but generally particular, backbenchers have. In that sense, we see that has not happened. individual Members as the experts in the field that they are bidding for a debate on, and we are there to Q74 Sir Roger Gale: The Backbench Business facilitate them getting time on the floor of the House. Committee as a select committee has fairly limited powers and resources. Basically, you see Members, Q75 Sir Roger Gale: I think I accept both of your hear their pitch, exercise the judgment of Solomon answers—both sides of the answer—almost in their and decide what is to be debated. Would there be any entirety. It seems to me that you are saying that you mileage or advantage in your having the power to call are still fairly young as a Committee, that you quite witnesses and have a sort of pre-debate examination clearly have a duty to expedite the business that you of the subject before reaching a decision? are already doing and that to add in witnesses would Natascha Engel: I think we are very different from clutter that. However, would you welcome—to take other select committees. We are a select committee in Ian’s point—a change to the Standing Orders very name, but we do not work in the same way as other specifically to allow you to call the Leader of the Select Committees. We don’t travel. In between the House to answer questions from your Committee? meetings of the select committee we do not have vast Natascha Engel: I am not sure. I think if we invited volumes of evidence that we have to go through. It is the Leader of the House, he would come. Again, if we very distinct in the resources that we need, so I were in a situation where we really needed the Leader certainly wouldn’t argue for that. of the House to come before our Committee and he I think in terms of the way that we work, I would like refused to come, I would come back to the Committee to carry on, first, because we have existed only for and ask you to help us in changing the Standing these two years. I would like to carry on to bed down Orders. what we have at the moment before we start making Jane Ellison: He has sat in sometimes. too many changes. The reason is because there are always unforeseen consequences in everything that Natascha Engel: He has come and sat in, yes. we do. In terms of calling for people and papers, the only Q76 Sir Roger Gale: So basically it is a voluntary time that we have come across this has been when we arrangement, but he does it? looked at e-petitions. Arguably, the reason we had to Natascha Engel: That is right. look at e-petitions was because the Government landed them on us when it wasn’t something that was Q77 Mr Gray: Before I go on to my main question, in our competency to start with. It was something that Jane mentioned briefly a moment ago that she thought was dealt with through the Procedure Committee. A that a very useful use of time was that there were report was submitted. Nothing happened, and we, as now more Select committee chairmen launching their the Backbench Business Committee, needed some reports on the floor of the House than there had been kind of action to move it on, but it was in neither previously. I have not see the figures for this, but my of our remits to do so, and we were waiting for the feeling is that there used to be far more in the old Government to do something. However, that was the days and that relatively few select committee only time that we have really wanted that power, chairmen now have that opportunity. Do you have because we held a seminar to get around it and it figures or evidence for that? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o002_th_12-06-13 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Ev 18 Procedure Committee: Evidence

13 June 2012 Natascha Engel MP, Jane Ellison MP and Ian Mearns MP

Jane Ellison: Obviously, I can speak only about 2010 day, but when they are competing on merit against onwards, but it was my understanding that there everything else that is coming—your sexier debates— wasn’t time for select committee chairmen. it is really important that we take a decision. We must decide whether there is a certain set of debates that is Q78 Mr Gray: No. There always was. Absolutely. untouchable—that we keep as set piece debates—or Jane Ellison: Well, then I stand corrected. I thought whether we start with a blank sheet of paper. Thirty- that it was an innovation in the last Session. five days—27 days, really, in the Chamber—is not a lot of time, so if we start taking out 15 days of set Q79 Mr Gray: It would be interesting to know, if we piece debates it will leave us with 12 days, and we can discover it, whether there are more or fewer select will start getting into problem areas. What we should committee reports debated on the floor of the House do a little better is use the fact that these are set piece than previously, because it is quite an important point. debates that have existed traditionally and give them Natascha Engel: I think that is slightly at cross- extra points when people make representations to the purposes. The launching of Select committee reports Committee. on the floor of the House is an innovation. It has not One final point: both the St David’s day debate and been done before, whereby chairs of select the International Women’s Day debate happen at the committees stand up, give a brief outline of what their beginning of March, which is generally when the report says and take questions in the form of Budget happens, too. So they both happen at a tight interventions. The Standing Order might already have time for the Backbench Business Committee. been changed. The launching of select committee reports in Westminster Hall has always happened. Q82 Mr Gray: Can I unpick this more? Your argument is that you have insufficient days and that if Q80 Mr Gray: It has always happened on the floor we went back to the previous regime, with set piece of the House. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am sure days for defence, your available days would be that I remember taking part in all kinds of debates reduced to an unreasonably small number. That is over the past 15 years on select committee reports on almost certainly correct, but surely it is an argument the floor of the House. for saying to the Government, “If you want to have Jane Ellison: The only thing I would say is that I this wonderful innovation, the Backbench Business am fairly sure that when the Chairman of the Foreign Committee days, you must give us the time.” Simply Affairs Committee launched a report, he believed it loading what should be Government things into was the first time that that had been done in a short Backbench days reduces the purpose of having a statement in the Chamber. Backbench Business Committee in the first place. Mr Gray: It might have been. Anyhow, we will Natascha Engel: I would be delighted if you move on. recommended that. Chair: For clarification, the old practice was that we Jane Ellison: I think the Chairman says that most had debates long after the report was published. The Thursdays at business questions, actually. new innovation is the Chairman’s introducing and announcing what the Committee has decided. Q83 Mr Gray: Is the solution not to say, “Fine. The 35 or 28 days”—whatever it is you have—“are about Q81 Mr Gray: That is the point. I beg your pardon. right, but certain things, such as the defence of the That is the difference. nation or the scrutiny of the Intelligence and Security This is a linked question on set piece debates: do you Committee, are matters that the nation ought to be think it is inevitable that useful but boring things like considering”? Parliament should be considering the defence, the Intelligence and Security Committee or defence of the nation, not making that subject to pre-summit debates will always be trumped by whether international women’s day or live animals in exciting but less worthy things? circuses is a more or less important topic. There is Natascha Engel: I think “sexy” was the word that you something wrong here, isn’t there? used in the last— Jane Ellison: There are a few points I would make. Mr Gray: I wouldn’t like to use it here. Broadly speaking, if you frame it like that, we would Natascha Engel: I have given a great deal of thought all say yes, but issues of topicality come into it. One to this. It is one of the many things about which you of our challenges over the past two years has been to have to conclude that there are 650 Members in this give a certain freshness to parliamentary debate. An House, and therefore there are 650 very firmly held experienced Member came up to me in the corridor opinions that all want an airing. There are some shortly after we scheduled the cycling debate in people who are very strongly in support of defence Westminster Hall, around the time that lots of days, International Women’s Day and St David’s day; Members were receiving correspondence about there are also many others who are not. cycling, and said, “So you think that cycling is more The set piece debates make up 15 days altogether, and important than manufacturing?” Someone had missed they are in the Wright Committee report. They are out on a bid. It was not more important, but the point very important, because they formed the original was that we could come back to debate manufacturing allocation of 35 days. We must not ignore them, a little bit later down the line, and I think it was good because they are what gave us the allocation of time to capture the zeitgeist at that time by having a debate from the Government in the first place, but if you look in which lots of Members could participate and at them, they were traditional debates. It is perhaps a interact with their constituents. I do not think it was a bit strong to say that some of them have had their measure of relative importance. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o002_th_12-06-13 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 19

13 June 2012 Natascha Engel MP, Jane Ellison MP and Ian Mearns MP

Q84 Mr Gray: No one denies the importance of They will say that very firmly. But the set piece freshness and topicality. That is correct, and that is the debates have, more than anything else, been a advantage of the new system. I am not arguing against vexatious issue for the Backbench Business that. The question is simply whether things of Committee, because they are something that certain immense importance to the state should come up groups of backbenchers have always had, and they against that question. Things are topical and feel that it has been taken away from them. That has important—that’s right—but the defence of the realm, been where there has been the most negative feeling. for example, and the consideration of how MI5 and Jane Ellison: That said, Chairman, I would say that if MI6 operate are not topical and not interesting— you look at it by subject matter, probably the greatest Jane Ellison: But— number of hours of backbench time have been given Mr Gray: Let me finish the question, if I may. They to subjects largely around the defence of the realm, are not topical, not sexy, not interesting and not not necessarily just general defence. If you look at important from the point of view of anybody’s Afghanistan, Iran—a lot of the topics were across constituency—unless you happen to live in general defence issues and some foreign policy issues, Cheltenham, I suppose. These are matters that and a lot of days were given to those. It may not Parliament ought to be discussing, and almost no always have been as a set piece— Member of Parliament apart from a few defence anoraks like me will be seeking to advance them in Q87 Mr Gray: Thank you for that contribution. I your Committee. Surely there is an argument for wonder whether you would very kindly back that up saying that the Government should be allowing debate with hours. We would like to see the evidence, on those things, and the Backbench Business because I cannot believe that that is the case. If indeed Committee should be focusing on precisely on the you are right in saying that over the past two years, a things you describe—topicality, interest and significant part—I think you said the largest part— freshness—which, by definition, defence and Jane Ellison: A significant part, yes. intelligence, for example, are not. Jane Ellison: May I respond quickly on that? The Q88 Mr Gray: If the largest part of backbench first thing I would say is that defence of the realm is business time was spent on defence issues, I would the job of the Government of the day, and not like to see that in terms of numbers of hours of debate. necessarily a backbench matter anyway. There is a strong argument there. I am not sure that that applies Jane Ellison: In those broad terms I defined— to all the set piece debates, however. I do not think it Mr Gray: We have got to talk facts here, not has hurt at all that over the past two years people have impressions. had to come and make the case for why they should debate something that had otherwise just been Q89 Tom Greatrex: My question follows on, in a regarded as routine. Some of the cases made have way. In your report you asked us to consider whether been really good, but some have literally been the definition of what is backbench and what is someone saying, “Well, we have always done it this Government should be further clarified. Have there way.” I think if that is the best argument that you can been any practical problems that you can explain as a advance, it is pretty poor. result of that lack of clarity in your work so far? Natascha Engel: Again, I go back to the fact that we Q85 Mr Gray: But you accept the point that that have existed for only two years, and that there has should be a matter for the Government. just been one very long parliamentary session. That is Natascha Engel: I totally agree with that. I also think where things went wrong, and hopefully in this that it goes back to the point that Government have session we will put them right. We had a rather the ability to schedule things in a grid across the aggressive ticking clock on the Order Paper, so whole session. Traditionally, the five defence days everything was about the time that we had been given were dotted over the parliamentary session. We do not versus what we were owed. There were quite a lot of have the ability to do that, so you are constantly serious debates about reports by the Select Committee running up against things that are more topical and on Standards and Privileges. Do they come out of more relevant than a general debate on defence. I Government time or backbench time? They were absolutely endorse what Jane said: that is not an scheduled by the Government, and then they were indication that the Backbench Business Committee scooped out of backbench time. Any of that sees defence as less relevant or less important than the Government scooping time out of our allocation I issues that are brought to us, but— really objected to in principle. It was that kind of thing. They were sort of the smaller areas. Q86 Mr Gray: No, but if the conclusion of our Also, the Government would, towards the end of the deliberations were to be—this is one possible session, suddenly put on general debates. It was conclusion—that we think the Government ought to perfectly understood that that was backbench territory. allow set piece debates in their own time without There were general debates on issues that people touching backbench business, that would be a hadn’t even come to see us about. We found that a bit recommendation to which you would not demur. puzzling and didn’t quite understand it. If they were Natascha Engel: Absolutely not. I have made this going to put those on—they were general debates— point to Government and Government will respond what was the harm in allocating that time to us and that the defence days and all the other set piece letting backbenchers choose for themselves what debates were part of what made up our allocation. debate they wanted to have? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o002_th_12-06-13 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Ev 20 Procedure Committee: Evidence

13 June 2012 Natascha Engel MP, Jane Ellison MP and Ian Mearns MP

Chair: It would be neat, but not necessary, if we could Q94 Mrs Chapman: You said before that you would finish by 4 o’clock, when I believe there will be a like to see a more imaginative use of Westminster division in the House of Commons. Snappy questions Hall. I am quite imaginative, but I can’t quite think and answers would be helpful. what that would be. Natascha Engel: Our imagination doesn’t go that far. Q90 Jacob Rees-Mogg: This follows on from the What we wanted to see was, first, a raising of the division of time. Do you think the Backbench status of Westminster Hall. That was the really key Business Committee should have the power to thing. We are on a single-handed— schedule time for debate on motions to annul statutory Jane Ellison: Mission to get the Cabinet in there. instruments subject to negative resolution? Natascha Engel: That’s right. We want to get Cabinet Natascha Engel: I have given this a lot of thought. ministers responding to debates in Westminster Hall, No, because we are talking about legislation. It may so that people ask us for Westminster Hall debates be delegated legislation, and it may be annulling rather than wanting to be in the Chamber. It was really about maybe launching select committee reports there, statutory instruments, but it is still legislation. I think asking ministers to make statements in Westminster the Backbench Business Committee keeps away from Hall and having proper question-and-answer sessions legislation, even private Members’ bills; we don’t with select committee chairs and Members—anything have anything to do with that. We put on debates that that does not require a vote. are brought to us by backbenchers that do not result Jane Ellison: There might be a progress report on in legislation. I would very firmly say that we should certain things. In the last session, Ministers often avoid it. came and responded to a debate by making certain commitments to action. We are quite keen in the new Q91 Jacob Rees-Mogg: I imagine, therefore, that Committee to see people come back and say, “I’d like you will say no to my follow-up question, which is, to hold that minister to account for that commitment when there is an enormously popular second reading to action. I don’t necessarily want there to be great debate, as with the Health bill a couple of years ago, antagonism; I just want a progress report on how should the Backbench Business Committee be able to that’s going, because I was reassured at the time and allocate a second day, so that more Members could we want to see how things are progressing.” Again, get to speak? that might be a use for Westminster Hall—a kind of Natascha Engel: That I would say yes to, because part two to a debate that has already been held— second reading debates are much more general. Yes, where a minister and debate leaders follow up on they are about whether a bill should go forward, but commitments made. if we are talking about the topic—let’s take the Health and Social Care Bill, for example—that would have Q95 Mrs Chapman: It is more about the status, isn’t benefited from more days on second reading. If people it? That is the big issue. People just do not see it as had come to us, and if we had agreed that it did not having equivalence with the Chamber at all. have enough time to be debated properly, that would Ian Mearns: I think that is right. I am convinced that not end up in legislation. It is just a debate about a on several occasions, because of the subject matter general topic on health and social care, so it does not being debated, the number of Members present in affect the legislative process. I would definitely look Westminster Hall has exceeded the number present in at something like that. the main Chamber, so I think we need to try and erode the idea in Members’ minds that Westminster Hall is a second-class option. Q92 Jacob Rees-Mogg: So you would say yes to second reading but no to delegated legislation? Q96 Mrs Chapman: And you would do that by Natascha Engel: Yes. I would also say yes on the allowing different forms of activity in there? later stages of bills, where amendments have been Ian Mearns: Yes. nobbled by vast numbers of new clauses. If an amendment by a backbencher is not reached— Q97 Chair: thinking about the Freedom Bill—there is no reason Is there anything that any of you wish to add? why that Member can’t come to the Backbench Jane Ellison: It might be worth mentioning—I did Business Committee and say, “This is something that just tot it up—that there were four days in the really has traction within the House and outside. Can Chamber on defence-related matters, as I defined it, we have a debate on it?” I think we would look at that including defence aspects of Afghanistan and Iran. No very sympathetically. other ministerial area got that many. I accept it is not as many as Members might have wanted, but over the Q93 Mr Nuttall: It has been suggested by the Session it probably was the single biggest area in Government that where the Speaker grants an terms of full-day debates in the Chamber. emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24, the Natascha Engel: You have just done the sittings time that is taken up by that debate should be taken report, and I am sure you will have found that there out of the Backbench Business Committee’s is no one solution to anything, because every single allocation. I would be grateful if you placed on record Member does things differently. One of the things that what you think of that particular proposal. I think is really important in the Backbench Business Natascha Engel: I wouldn’t want to interfere with Committee is to have flexibility, rather than being too what is the Speaker’s decision, so no. prescriptive, because there is no one perfect solution. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o002_th_12-06-13 CORRECTED BBC Inquiry Oral Evidence.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 21

13 June 2012 Natascha Engel MP, Jane Ellison MP and Ian Mearns MP

You do one thing and it means you displease others. Q98 Chair: May I thank you all for coming along That is something that we as Committee members today and giving us the beneﬁt of your views, which have to manage. That is just our role. Jane mentioned, will be invaluable to us as we progress with this “You have chosen cycling over manufacturing,” but inquiry? If, after today, you think of something that that is a decision that we have to make and then justify you have not mentioned, which you wish you had and defend. We use a very clear set of criteria against mentioned, please feel free to write to me. which we judge our debates, and at the end it is Natascha Engel: Thank you very much. actually just a scheduling job, but there is no one solution. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o003_th_12-06-20 CORRECTED BBCom.xml

Ev 22 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Wednesday 20 June 2012

Members present: Mr Greg Knight (Chair)

Karen Bradley John Hemming Nic Dakin Mr David Nuttall Thomas Docherty Jacob Rees-Mogg Sir Roger Gale ______

Examination of Witness

Witness: Ms Angela Eagle MP, Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, gave evidence.

Q99 Chair: Angela, thank you for coming. As you think of the Hillsborough debate—obviously a very, know, we are conducting an inquiry into the workings very deeply moving occasion that has particular of the Backbench Business Committee, and we are at relevance for those of us who come from Merseyside, an early stage of that inquiry. We have made no but also last week’s debate on mental health, for judgments or formed any opinions at the moment. Our example, was another really important occasion that views have not crystallised. We are in listening mode was facilitated by the decisions taken on the and are looking forward to hearing what you have to Backbench Business Committee. say. Do you wish to make an opening statement? Ms Eagle: A small one, if I may, Chairman. Q101 Sir Roger Gale: The Wright Committee’s Chair: Okay, the floor is yours. original proposals for the selection of the Backbench Ms Eagle: First of all, I would like to thank the Business Committee were that the Committee should Committee for the amount of work that has gone into be elected by the House as a whole. That was very the report that you produced today on sitting hours of clear, indeed, with safeguards to ensure proportional the House. It is a contentious area about which it is representation in terms of the makeup of the House. difficult to get any kind of consensus across the The Government decided it wanted to alter that and House, but you have gamely tried. I am sure we will to create a situation where members of the Backbench have a lot of opportunity to discuss that in the near Committee were only elected by members of their future. I have not quite managed to digest it yet, but I own party. In March of 2012 the Government brought can assure you that I will be doing so. forward those proposals, and you supported them. I would also just at the beginning of my evidence like Why did you do that? to point out that I am speaking largely in a personal Ms Eagle: I think it was anomalous that the capacity because there is no real set parliamentary Backbench Business Committee was the only Labour party view on some of the issues we are committee whose membership—this is excluding the considering today with respect to the Backbench chairman or chairperson who is voted on by all Business Committee. You will note, I am sure, that members of the House at the beginning of each in votes on the recent changes to the election of the parliamentary session—should be voted on by other Backbench Business Committee—I think it was political parties’ memberships. I think that is debated on 12 March—there were parliamentary anomalous. I personally voted to support the change Labour Party members in both lobbies from the that actually came about, and I think that ensures that frontbench as well as the backbench for the typical the way that the Backbench Business Committee is reason that we had a free vote. elected matches select committees. It prevents there being party political game playing, particularly by Q100 Chair: Okay, thank you for that. How do you parties that have to be in the majority, that could personally rate the performance of the Backbench influence, for reasons that may not always be noble, Business Committee during the last session? the kinds of people that might be elected for other Ms Eagle: I think it has gone well and it has been a parties. That was my personal view. Sir Roger, you good innovation. There have been some really will know that it was a free vote and that there were important debates held under the auspices of the new members of the parliamentary party in both lobbies. arrangements. There were a few challenges at the beginning in operating the new system because when Q102 Sir Roger Gale: I was raising an eyebrow at there are dividable motions there was a view that the free vote. perhaps the party whipping system should not have an Ms Eagle: There was a free vote. It was a genuine interest in how people voted because it was a free vote, Sir Roger. backbench debate. People understand now if there are Sir Roger Gale: It was a genuine free vote— divisions on issues that a political party, the Labour Ms Eagle: Yes, I can assure you of that. Party, has policy or views on, then it is legitimate to Sir Roger Gale:—as opposed to the traditional free whip them. That has certainly largely been the case vote. on the Labour side now. Ms Eagle: It was actually a genuine free vote; you Also I would just like to say that some of the most will see if you look that there were members of our important and impressive debates in the last session frontbench in both lobbies, which is a pretty good sign have actually been on motions that are not divisible. I of a free vote if you ask me. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o003_th_12-06-20 CORRECTED BBCom.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 23

20 June 2012 Ms Angela Eagle MP

Q103 Sir Roger Gale: Under the Wright proposals, welcome a more formal process for the allocation of the minority parties at least had some say in who was backbench time by the Government? selected. There was an amendment tabled at that time Ms Eagle: There has to be a balance struck between to give minority parties representation on the having rigid time and flexibility. The Government has Backbench Committee and you voted against that. to have time to deal with its legislative programme; Why did you do that? That is another anomaly. You that is obviously why we are all here. Sometimes the have replaced one anomaly with another anomaly. Government’s legislative programme is lighter or Ms Eagle: I think that the minority parties, if you more imbalanced in that it is all stuck in the Lords, exclude Sinn Féin, are about 4% of the membership which is what we saw happen at the end of the last of the House. If you look at what they do, very many session. That gives more time for backbench business. of them are frontbench spokespeople, by definition, In fact, we were having days and days of backbench for their parties. They are not backbench in that sense. business and not a lot of legislation while the log- They speak from their own frontbenches and they all jam in the Lords worked through at the end of the have their own opposition debates. I think if we are last session. going to have a committee that has eight members, Obviously, I think an important principle is that then you cannot start accommodating every nook and backbench business should not be announced at the cranny—be it geographical minority parties or all of last minute. It should not be arbitrarily changed at the those things that you do not expect to get entirely in last minute to make it difficult for people, like it was proportion. If you wanted to have minority with the Europe debate that was suddenly switched representation on the Backbench Business Committee, from one day to the next with little notice. But at the you would have to probably make it a lot bigger. same time I am sympathetic to the Government saying it needs to have some flexibility to ensure that it can Q104 Sir Roger Gale: But under the Wright deal with events and get its own business. What I proposals originally there was that possibility. Now would like to see is a reasonable balance between there is not. those things. If you had a set day, I think it would be Ms Eagle: As I say, my view is that the minority too rigid. parties have their own way of having opposition debates. They are a small minority of the House. It is Q107 Nic Dakin: You would not welcome that possible for them to stand for election, I suppose, and because the quantum— persuade other parties perhaps—no, that would not Ms Eagle: The quantum is being decided, yes. work with the new system, would it? I see what you Nic Dakin:—it roughly works out to a day a week, mean. does it not? Sir Roger Gale: No. Ms Eagle: Yes. Ms Eagle: I do think that they are too small to be guaranteed a place, 4% of the membership. If you Q108 Nic Dakin: The Backbench Business wanted to guarantee them a place, then I think you Committee were keen on the idea of a set day, a day would have to increase the membership allocated each week, because that would help them mathematically to about 25. Now, that is three-plus plan their business. But you are saying that you feel times the size of the Backbench Business Committee that would be too rigid? now. Ms Eagle: I think it is a bit too inflexible. If you had it on a Thursday, then people may just generally tend Q105 Sir Roger Gale: It is an interesting concept to leave the House knowing there was going to be no that the size of their representation in the House whipped business unless there was a dividable motion denies them any representation on the Committee. Too early, or you have it earlier in the week, in which small is— case it could be disruptive and inflexible. I think the Ms Eagle: Well, 4%. The issue that is they can make important principles are that backbench business is representations to the Backbench Committee. They announced in plenty of time, and that there are not can persuade the Backbench Committee to give time sudden arbitrary changes made by the Leader of the for debates that they wish to have, but being only 4% House to the days when backbench business is going of the entire House, if you want to have that kind of to be heard, unless there is an extremely good reason representation for parties that are that small a for it. I think that is probably the best compromise percentage of membership of the House, then you you could get. would have to have a much larger committee. Sir Roger Gale: Okay, we will save round two for Q109 Nic Dakin: You feel as an alternative to one the Leader of the House. Thank you very much. day a week there is no reason why at the beginning Chair: Thank you. Can I ask members of the of a session the backbench business cannot be Committee in response to an answer not to raise their sketched out roughly in advance so that proper eyebrows—it is difficult to capture this in the planning can be done? evidence—but actually to follow through with a Ms Eagle: We know how many days there are, but in supplementary? politics we are suddenly subject to events that we cannot predict in advance. You have to achieve a Q106 Nic Dakin: The Backbench Business balance between allowing business managers the Committee has identified the ad hoc and uneven flexibility to deal with those events and scheduling allocation of backbench time as they see it as a the appropriate amount of backbench business. With significant hindrance to their work. Would you goodwill on all sides it can be done, as long as there cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o003_th_12-06-20 CORRECTED BBCom.xml

Ev 24 Procedure Committee: Evidence

20 June 2012 Ms Angela Eagle MP are no sudden arbitrary changes. If a pattern were to a nod and a wink between a few people and get the develop whereby backbench business was routinely business on iPads cleared up as fast as possible. I do switched or changed about, then this Committee not have a particular problem with the idea that the would have cause to worry, but there is no sign— Backbench Business Committee should be able to except on that one occasion with the Europe debate— table a motion to ensure that if it is scheduled to that that is happening regularly. debate then they can both be heard in the appropriate time with the amount of time allocated that the Q110 Nic Dakin: The Backbench Business Backbench Business Committee decided. Committee is still relatively young. Do you think that we have already reached a point where there is Q113 Karen Bradley: Do you see any need for limits sufficient confidence about what is coming up in the on those powers? future for them to be able to plan their business? Or Ms Eagle: Well, it depends what you mean. I am do you think there is more that could be done to assuming they are going to behave reasonably and try encourage greater confidence? to facilitate the business happening in both Ms Eagle: These systems will develop over time as Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the Commons the whole system beds in. It is still relatively young that they wanted to happen, rather than suddenly let it in parliamentary terms, and I think it is quite right this go straight to their heads and start tabling all sorts of Committee is looking at these issues. It should peculiar business motions. continue to keep an eye on how this evolves and see whether there are ways that it could work better once Q114 Karen Bradley: One of the points that has we have had more experience of it. been made to us by witnesses is the amount of time frontbenchers sometimes take up and eat into the Q111 Nic Dakin: Is there any improvement you backbench time. Would you object to an imposition would want to see in that scheduling of business of time limits on frontbench contributions to process recognising the balance between the demands backbench debates? of business managers and the desires of the Ms Eagle: Would that be by the Speaker or the Backbench Business Committee? Backbench Business Committee? Ms Eagle: I know that there is some worry about Karen Bradley: Either by the Speaker or by the having business motions so that they can get both their Committee. debates in and things like that. That might be Ms Eagle: I do not object to the use of time limits something we would want to look at. particularly. It can sometimes make debates very perfunctory and it is unfair if the frontbench hog all Q112 Karen Bradley: That leads very nicely on to sorts of time, especially in backbench time. my question about business motions. You have said Frontbenchers should always be mindful of that. I that it is a possibility. Are you in favour of it and, if think if you are going to have a system like that, and so, should there be any limit on the powers of the I do not particularly have an objection, the Speaker Backbench Business Committee to table business should probably be the person that does the allocation, motions? as he does in all other instances. Ms Eagle: In the past, prior to there being timetabling of motions, the House got used to nods and winks and Q115 Chair: Thank you. That ends our formal doing things in that way. The House has moved away questioning. Is there anything you want to add? from that kind of approach for government business; Ms Eagle: Not really, except that I look forward to it is perhaps anomalous, therefore, that the Backbench your thoughts when you publish your report. Business Committee can schedule two debates in a Chair: Thank you. If something occurs to you after day—I think particularly of the debate on iPads and today that you wish to draw to our attention, please HS2. That seems to be the obvious one where we had do write to me. Indeed, if a strand of opinion or view the gallery packed with people from the affected develops within the Labour Party on this subject and areas, all wondering why on earth we were discussing you wish to inform us formally, please do write. the provision of iPads to members while they wanted Thank you for coming. to listen to the debate on HS2. Obviously, at times Ms Eagle: Thank you. like that, the old way of doing things would be to have

Examination of Witness

Witness: Pete Wishart MP, Scottish National Party Member of Parliament for Perth and North Perthshire, gave evidence.

Q116 Chair: Do you wish to make an opening Most of us did have a place on a number of select statement before we get down to questions? committees prior to Wright becoming a feature of the Pete Wishart: Nothing other than it is a real pleasure select committee system. There are now very few to be back in front of this Committee once again. The members of the smaller parties on select committees, only thing I would like to say in advance of any particularly departmental select committees, and I questions is that the Wright proposals have been an think that impoverishes committees. The only absolute disaster for the smaller parties of the House. opposition party that committees get to hear from is cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o003_th_12-06-20 CORRECTED BBCom.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 25

20 June 2012 Pete Wishart MP the Labour Party; surely we want to have as wide a Pete Wishart: We do not have a right to speak; it is range of views as possible when it comes to at the discretion of the Chair. considering some of the major issues that Chair: But the Chair has also told us that that departmental select committees consider. I think it has Committee never votes on anything. They normally been a real loss, and certainly the Wright proposals reach agreement by consensus. have been a disaster for us. We are excluded from the Pete Wishart: I think the point, Chair, is that where all Backbench Business Committee, as you know, and it the other parties, the big three parties, do have official is not a Backbench Business Committee; it is a membership of that Committee, we are a status apart. Backbench Business Committee of three parties of the We are like second-class citizens when it comes to House. It does not cover all the parties at all. As we being part of that Committee. I do not think that any are moving towards a House Committee, once again fair-minded person would be in a position to accept we would be expected to be excluded from that, too. that status. Certainly, that is the view of all the smaller So, just to let you know that it has not been a good parties of the House. We welcome the work of the time for us when it comes to places on select Backbench Business Committee, but we will not committees in the past two years. accept second-class status when it comes to actually being able to participate in that Committee. Q117 Chair: You tweeted a few moments ago that you regarded the treatment of the smaller parties as Q120 Chair: What you are telling us is although this appalling. What is appalling about it? You are invited right exists, it is not something that has been tried and to attend the Committee and you are invited to play a failed; it is something you are not prepared to try? role in the deliberations of the Committee. Pete Wishart: That is absolutely the case. We are not Pete Wishart: I am grateful to be able to put the case prepared to accept a second-class status when it comes for the smaller parties, and it is a good opportunity to the composition of the Backbench Business just to restate the position that the smaller parties find Committee. I do not think any fair-minded person ourselves in. It is appalling. The treatment has been would accept that. Certainly, it is the view of all the appalling. We made some great progress in the course minority parties; nobody will attend that Committee of the past 10 years. We were in a situation with the as long as that type of second-class status exists. smaller parties where we had very few places on select committees. Prior to Wright we made fantastic Q121 Thomas Docherty: You represent less than a progress. At one stage I was on two select twentieth of the House, and you mentioned the big committees—I was on Scottish Affairs and parties, ones that represent 95%, 96% of the House— Administration—I am now no longer on any select why should you have a disproportionate voice on the committee whatsoever. There are, in fact, only five business of the debates? members of all the smaller parties that are actually on Pete Wishart: Well, we should not. If that is the view departmental select committees. Now, I do not know of the House, that is fair enough. If the House wants how you would describe that, Chair, but I would to impose strict arithmetical data, that is up to the describe that as something approaching appalling. I House. We will have to accept it, as we do have to think it is exclusion, and I think that this House does accept it. I would have thought it was in the House’s not get to hear the views of the other parties of this interest to over-represent minorities. That is what House in its major work in select committees. happens in the Scottish Parliament. The Liberals in the Scottish Parliament are now down to five. All of Q118 Chair: But in the particular case we are them have two places on the equivalent of select looking into, the smaller parties are being invited to committees in the Scottish Parliament, as do the take an active part in the deliberations of the Greens. There is a real effort in the Scottish Committee. What is appalling about that? Parliament to over-represent minority and smaller Pete Wishart: In this Committee? parties. This House can make up its mind and we have Chair: Yes. no right according to the crude arithmetic, but does Pete Wishart: I am grateful for that— the House not want to hear the views of other parties Chair: No, on the Backbench Business Committee. other than just the Labour Opposition? Pete Wishart: We are a second-class participant when it comes to the Backbench Business Committee. We Q122 Thomas Docherty: You can have your views are invited to attend, we have no voting rights, we heard because it has been made clear, as the Chair have no rights to speak at the Backbench Business has made clear, that your views can be heard at the Committee. Where we are invited along, we have Backbench Business Committee. You are absolutely no place on the Backbench Business disproportionately being given places. If we are on the Committee and we have no right to vote. subject of lack of representation, your member of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, as I understand it, Q119 Chair: Just for accuracy, I do not think that is has not attended in something like nine months now. entirely right. As I understand it, subject to the We talk about the voice of the minority parties not discretion that the Chair always has, the position is being heard; it would be helpful if the member that minority parties would have a right to speak at actually wanted to turn up. the meeting but not to vote. Pete Wishart: That member was threatened with a Pete Wishart: I think that is in the discretion of the “doing” from the select committee chair and she will Chair, yes? not attend that committee as long as he is in that place. Chair: I believe so. Nobody would be prepared to go along to a select cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o003_th_12-06-20 CORRECTED BBCom.xml

Ev 26 Procedure Committee: Evidence

20 June 2012 Pete Wishart MP committee if that was the case and the situation that principle, but in terms of pragmatism we would be in she was placed in. She is absolutely right not to take a stronger position here to have demonstrated the role that place as long as that person is the chair of that through evidence in terms of influencing the debate committee. that we are in. I do not really understand why that path has not been chosen. Q123 John Hemming: Just one little point of Pete Wishart: It is really funny because we were clarification. I believe that there has been one vote, on actually given a place on the Wright Committee and the issue of whether or not there should be a debate Elfyn Llwyd, who did a fantastic job for us on the on women. I am not quite sure whether I was there or Wright Committee in helping build up the proposals, which way I voted; I think I would have voted to consistently put forward the view that where this was debate that, to be fair. going was going to be bad for the minority parties. Chair: Just for the record, Mr Hemming is also a We got a place on the Wright Committee, but we are member of the Backbench Business Committee and not getting a place on the Backbench Business he is referring to a vote on that Committee, not on Committee, which seems a little bit strange to us. We this one. were prepared to help out and assist building up what John Hemming: I do not remember any other vote became the Wright proposals. When they were on the Committee, so if, for example, you were given presented to Parliament I spoke in that debate and the same rights to speak as any other member of the made it quite clear that the eventual outcome of the Committee but not a vote, would that make a Wright proposals would be very damaging to the difference to your view? minority parties. There would be fewer places for us. Pete Wishart: The fundamental concern for us and the It looked likely that we would not get a place on the key issue in this is that there was an effort to try to Backbench Business Committee. I was assured at that accommodate us, but it is not satisfactory. This idea point by the Leader of the House and others that this that we have to accept this second-class status—as a would be looked at. Being looked at, I was presuming Liberal member you are a full member of the Committee, all the other members are full members that some sort of solution would be brought forward. of the Committee, but we have to accept an inferior What was brought forward was an unacceptable membership of that Committee. We are allowed to solution where we were given observer status but not speak at the discretion of the Chair and we are not full membership. We are really back to where we allowed to vote. Now, I do not think any fair-minded were. person would accept that. In the House of Commons, We have always been prepared to help out when it we are all supposed to be equal, that was the idea. Mr comes to the issues of the House. Most of us are quite Docherty and myself have had several conversations experienced politicians. Most of the members of the about the rights of Scottish MPs; there is always this smaller parties have been here for 11, 15 years. I just predominant view that we are all equal, but at the think, “Why don’t you want to hear?” Why does the same time we are expected to accept an unequal status House not want to hear from the smaller parties? What on the Backbench Business Committee and we are did we do wrong? I am a former musician and you just not going to do that. would have thought, “Why don’t we get him on the DCMS Committee”. I cannot get on the DCMS Q124 John Hemming: The point I was trying to Committee. Why do you not want us on the make is this question about the power to speak as Backbench Business Committee? Surely we have well, because obviously as pretty well everything has something to offer and contribute to the House; I just been without a vote, the vote is not—there has been do not get it. True to the arithmetical position, keep one vote, there may have been more than one vote, us out, and if that is what this House wants to do— but there has definitely been one vote. There may not exclude the smaller parties of the House—get on with have been more than one vote. Would it make any it, but do not try to pretend that this is a Backbench difference if your speaking rights were just the same Business Committee. It is a Backbench Business as any other member of the Committee? Committee of some of the House, not all of the House. Pete Wishart: No, I do not think it would. It would be up to the other smaller parties to discuss that. We Q126 Mr Nuttall: Just for the record, how many would have to decide that, but I think the overriding members of the Scottish National party are there in principle for us is the fact that we are expected to the House of Commons? accept a second-class position on the Backbench Pete Wishart: We have the six SNP members. Business Committee that no other Members of this House have to accept. That is the key principle in all of this, and I do not think that would be acceptable to Q127 Mr Nuttall: Thank you. Do you all speak on the other smaller parties. an area of frontbench responsibility? Pete Wishart: It is not going to be frontbench Q125 Nic Dakin: I just wanted to pick up this point responsibility. We all obviously have to take about the Backbench Business Committee being very departments. Because we are a small party— young in its life. There has been, and is, an opportunity to fully participate in that. Would it not Q128 Mr Nuttall: Every member, every one of those have helped in terms of demonstrating the role and six, has some form of responsibility? voice and value of the minority parties to have taken Pete Wishart: Absolutely. It is the only way we can part in that process? I understand the concern on do it in a small party, yes. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o003_th_12-06-20 CORRECTED BBCom.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 27

20 June 2012 Pete Wishart MP

Q129 Mr Nuttall: You would accept, therefore, in Q135 Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think I can predict your that case that to that extent, unlike myself, for answer to this, but do you think the size of the example, a backbencher from one of the two largest Committee should be increased to allow for a minority parties in the House, we have no frontbench party member to be put on it? responsibilities whatsoever and to that extent you Pete Wishart: Yes, I think that would be the most would be in a different position? sensible conclusion to that, at least increase it by one Pete Wishart: Well, I am not a frontbencher. I speak and put us on. If you need to keep a Government on particular issues. majority, then increase it by two. In some of the departmental select committees we are on—for Q130 Mr Nuttall: Yes, you speak on issues just in example, we managed to get a place on Treasury— the same way as a shadow minister or shadow that was increased to accommodate Stewart Hosie from the SNP, as was the Justice Committee, which secretary of state in the Labour Party? They are was increased to ensure that Elfyn Llwyd could get a frontbenchers but they speak on that issue? place on that. These things are pretty straightforward, Pete Wishart: If the House was to treat me as a just increase it by one or two and then you will hear frontbencher where I was taken early in every other voices. question session and perhaps got two questions to the secretary of state, then I am quite happy to describe Q136 Thomas Docherty: Just for clarification, if the myself as a frontbencher, but we do not get that; minority parties were to be allocated a place, do you sometimes I do not even get taken in question believe that should be voted on by the whole House sessions. or just the 22 members of the minority parties? Pete Wishart: My understanding is that Labour Q131 Mr Nuttall: Under Standing Order No. 14, do Members vote for Labour candidates, as do you have any say in the allocation of the opposition Conservative Members. In the smaller parties we now days? work very well together; what we would probably do Pete Wishart: I think we are given an opposition day. would be to decide internally to see who would take I think it is like one half day per year we are entitled a place and we would rotate that. That is how we have to. always worked these things out. In the past the Leader of the House and others have not presented this as a Q132 Mr Nuttall: You are guaranteed that? problem, but how do you get disparate parties places Pete Wishart: Yes. on all this. Now we work together. We get places on things like the Westminster Foundation for Q133 Mr Nuttall: I think if you asked most groups Democracy and the IPU, and we come to an of six backbenchers that they be guaranteed a half- arrangement about how we take these places. There day, they would probably take that. has never been an issue and a problem, and we tend— Pete Wishart: Yes. when it comes to these type of issues—to work very closely together. That would not be a problem. We would make sure that through our own democratic Q134 Mr Nuttall: To that extent, would you accept, processes we would have a member. therefore, that you are in a slightly more privileged Thomas Docherty: You would fill it yourselves; that position than the average group of six backbenchers? is fine. Pete Wishart: Under the Labour Government it was Chair: Thank you. We are nearly coming to the end particularly generous, and they were actually prepared of this session. to give us more than our arithmetical time when it came to opposition days. Again, the Government have Q137 Sir Roger Gale: You heard the question that I been reasonably generous when it comes to that. We put to the Shadow Leader of the House. If the Wright have no gripe about opposition days and I think that proposals had been accepted in their original form and sometimes Government is keen to fill the time that is the whole House had voted on the membership of the available when they have nothing to do, so, “Let’s Committee, do you think the minority parties would give some time to the opposition parties”, or, “The have fared better or would you still have been Labour Party does not have anything to say so let’s excluded? see if we can give it down to the minority parties”. Pete Wishart: Most people I speak to, they get it. That is generally the way that it worked. It is not as They cannot believe the fact that we are excluded if a spirit of, “Let’s make sure that you could give from something that is called the Backbench Business them the opportunity to speak about any issues they Committee, and then it is not all of the backbenchers; want”; it is usually because they do not have anything it is just most of them. I think most Members of to fill the time with, so it works its way down. That Parliament understand that and there is a great deal of has never been a problem for us. We get that time, sympathy towards our position. I was surprised to hear and we are very grateful for that. That does not get the shadow Leader of the House saying that it is the away from the fact that there is an increasing Labour Party’s position now that they do not want to exclusion of other voices in this House. The only have minority parties on Backbench Business opposition party that gets to participate in most of the Committee. That is disappointing because most committees of the House is exclusively the Labour Labour Members I have spoken to think that it is Opposition. You do not get to hear from anybody else unfair and believe that there should be a place for us. in the Committees of this House. If there was an unwhipped vote in the House, I am cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o003_th_12-06-20 CORRECTED BBCom.xml

Ev 28 Procedure Committee: Evidence

20 June 2012 Pete Wishart MP absolutely certain that by a large majority we would I am not answering every single question on behalf of be allowed a place on the Backbench Business the DUP or the SDLP, whatever, but I was asked to Committee. But if it is going to be whipped in the come along and give this evidence. I cannot speak for way that has been described by the Shadow Leader of all the smaller parties; that would be impossible. the House, then I do not think we have a chance. Thomas Docherty: Just for clariﬁcation, I do not Q140 Chair: Are you saying a principled decision think there was any suggestion that there was a whip has been taken that you are not prepared to participate on the issue. It is House business. It will be a free on the Backbench Business Committee without vote. voting rights? Chair: Okay, thank you for that. Pete Wishart: That is correct.

Q138 Jacob Rees-Mogg: As you work very well Q141 Chair: Would that position change—would a with the other minority parties, is it a particular minority party member be prepared to go along and concern of yours that it is, in fact, impossible for any to take an active part in the Backbench Business Northern Irish MP to be on the Backbench Committee Committee if we were to say we will review the at all and that it is, therefore, much more of a problem position after a year and examine any shortcomings for Northern Ireland than it is for Scotland or for that you or your colleagues identiﬁed as existing in Wales? that arrangement? Pete Wishart: I think that is a good point. I know that Pete Wishart: That would have to be considered by that is an issue that concerned the DUP particularly, all the minority parties. I cannot answer on behalf of that there is not an opportunity for anybody from them for that. Northern Ireland to be there. Scotland obviously can through a large number of Labour Members from Q142 Chair: Can I ask you to put that to them and Scotland, and obviously from Wales, too, but there perhaps to let me know at a later date what the answer will not be a Northern Irish Member of the Backbench to that question is? Business Committee as it currently stands. Pete Wishart: Yes, of course.

Q139 Chair: Thank you for your evidence. Just for Q143 Chair: Is there anything you want to add? the avoidance of all doubt, can I just clarify a few Pete Wishart: No, thank you. matters? Unlike the Shadow Leader, who has just Chair: I thank you for your time and for coming given evidence, you are saying you are speaking on along. behalf of all the minority parties with their authority Pete Wishart: My pleasure. on this issue? Pete Wishart: I am speaking on behalf of the smaller parties, giving you my own version and view of that.

Examination of Witness

Witness: Rt Hon Sir George Young MP, Leader of the House of Commons, gave evidence.

Q144 Chair: Sir George, thank you for coming. I I pay tribute to those who have operated the system realise you are very busy, and we appreciate you have for the first two years. I very much look forward to found time for us in your busy day. Do you wish to the review that your Committee is undertaking. make an opening statement before we get down to questions? Q145 Chair: Thank you. There has been some Sir George Young: Very briefly, Chairman, I have controversy about the change in the way members are submitted written evidence, which your Committee elected to the Backbench Business Committee, a has. If I could just add three short footnotes, I think change that was brought about because you described the Committee has been a great success partly because the original arrangement as an anomaly. If that is your there is a commitment to, and ownership of, the view, why was the Backbench Business Committee debates by backbenchers that simply was not there set up in that way in the first place? when the Government chose the subjects and Sir George Young: Initially, we implemented the presented them to the House. I think also there is a Wright recommendations as they were proposed by transparency and an element of competition in the Wright. We felt the House should have an opportunity choice of subjects that simply was not there before before this session began to decide whether they when they were chosen by the Leader of the House. wanted to bring the method of election for this Also, I think the Backbench Business Committee has Committee in line with the method of election for all gone where angels fear to tread, if I may say so, in the other select committees. In my response to one of choosing subjects that the Government and, in some your reports, I think on the election of the Speaker, I cases, the opposition would not have chosen. There made it clear that the Government would give the may be areas where, for example, the backbenchers House an opportunity to decide on this before this want to hold the Executive to account, which is session began. On 12 March there was an opportunity different from the areas where the opposition may for such a debate, which we held and the Deputy want to do that. I think it has been a great success and Leader in that debate set out the reasons why the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o003_th_12-06-20 CORRECTED BBCom.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 29

20 June 2012 Rt Hon Sir George Young MP

Government felt the change should be made. There Having listened to Mr Wishart, he applied for one was a debate and then a vote, and the House resolved debate, which he got, I think, within a month. If you to change the method of election and bring it into line look at the representations made by minority parties, with the other ones. I think they asked for 16 debates and they got 12 of them granted, the other four being dealt with another Q146 Sir Roger Gale: Tony Wright described the way. There is no evidence at the moment that the changes that the Government introduced as a minority parties are in any way discriminated against retrograde step. Is there not a danger that the form of by the current system. We tried to make a move election that the Government has introduced with the towards the minority parties in the change that was support of the major opposition party hands power approved in March in giving them a place on the back to the Whips and allows them to put placemen Committee in its deliberative stage. I am sorry that into the Backbench Business Committee? they have apparently decided to boycott it in an Sir George Young: It is a secret ballot, so it is difficult environment where, as we have just heard, there has I to see how the Whips could encourage people to vote think only been one vote in two years. Of course, we in ways other than the way in which they wanted to. would listen to any recommendations that you make, The change was endorsed by the House rather than by but we do not think there is a particular problem of the Government and the opposition. There was a vote discrimination against the minority parties. Nor do we and the House decided to change. But in a secret think a strong case has been made for dealing with ballot, it is quite difficult to see why a Member should this select committee in a totally different way to the vote according to what the Whips have asked him to other ones. do if he wanted to do something else. It would be a secret between the Member and the Almighty. Q149 Mr Nuttall: Of course, using the normal Sir Roger Gale: If all Members are honourable and formula, to get to the stage when the minority parties if they gave an undertaking to the Whips, they would, are entitled to a member would make the Committee of course, keep it, wouldn’t they? very large and unwieldy, wouldn’t it? Chair: Is that another raised eyebrow? Sir George Young: Yes, a point that I made I think in Sir Roger Gale: That is another raised eyebrow. I rest oral questions last Thursday when Mr Wishart raised my case. the matter on the floor of the House.

Q147 John Hemming: On that particular point, Q150 Nic Dakin: Given that the Government wants perhaps the argument is that the opposition party the Backbench Business Committee to work and given might vote for more independently minded we have heard of this issue of principle acting as a representatives of, say, the Conservative Party barrier for participation by minority parties on the whereas Conservative Members may vote for people Committee, what is the argument for not giving them who are less inclined to be independent of the a voting place? Government. There was a substantial turnover in Sir George Young: A voting place as opposed— terms of the Conservative representation on the Nic Dakin: Yes. Committee. Do you see that as being signiﬁcant? Sir George Young: Well, ﬁrstly, it is not a committee Sir George Young: I think it is right that the that operates by votes. We have heard that there has Conservative Party should decide who it wishes to only been one vote. The principle with select represent itself on this Committee in the same way committees is that you look at the size of the select that the Labour Party and the other parties choose committee and then you allocate them according to their own representatives. I think that argument, if you the representation in the House. We have dealt with were to extend it, could be applied to every single this Committee in the same way as other select select committee. I think we divide the select committees and also, as I said a moment ago, the committees on party lines and I think it is right that Wright Committee did not recommend a place as of each party should then decide who represents its party right on the Backbench Business Committee for rather than having the decision potentially distorted by minority parties. Presumably he considered it, but they the votes of other parties with perhaps other motives. did not propose that, so we are where we are.

Q148 Mr Nuttall: As you may be aware, one of the Q151 Nic Dakin: The current allocation of time to biggest contentious items, as we have just seen in the the Backbench Business Committee Wright described earlier evidence session, is a place for the minority as a minimum offering. Is there scope for more time parties. Would the Government be inclined to support to be offered to that minimum offering? a change to allow a place for the minority parties if Sir George Young: Within the context of the the Government could be guaranteed still having a discussions at the end of the last Parliament, where majority on the Committee? I understand at the we now are, which is 27 on the ﬂoor, 35 in all, is—it moment the Government would still have a majority would be fair to say—at the top end of the even if a minority party was put on. It could be made expectations of those who sat on the Wright more certain by extending it by two. Committee. It is a minimum and, in fact, in the session Sir George Young: The Wright Committee, at that has just ended, admittedly a longer session, we paragraph 180, recommended a committee of between exceeded the minimum. I think there were 40 days on seven and nine to represent the balance in the House. the ﬂoor of the House, whereas technically we could That is what we have done. Of course, we will listen have stuck with 35 because it is so many days per to any recommendation your Committee makes. session. It is a minimum. I would be raising false cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o003_th_12-06-20 CORRECTED BBCom.xml

Ev 30 Procedure Committee: Evidence

20 June 2012 Rt Hon Sir George Young MP hopes if I said that we plan to exceed it, particularly It is enfranchised in the backbenchers, and they are in the current session, which is not going to be as long accountable for how they use the time. as the one that has just ended. Q155 Karen Bradley: On the topic of time, not so Q152 Nic Dakin: How does the Government much the amount of time but the certainty over days, determine the subjects for general debate in one of the comments made to us is that there are 35 Government time? days allocated, of which 27 are in the Chamber. If one Sir George Young: The ones that we retain? Well, we was to take out set-piece events like the Budget, we do not retain very many. I will listen to what is raised would pretty much get to having 27 weeks that a at business questions. The Government has a right, as backbench debate could be held. Now, without you know, to nominate subjects for general debate. actually allocating a set day of the week for that The ones that we chose—I think the SDSR was one, debate, would there be scope for saying in advance we also chose another one on defence—we were just that “This week we will have a backbench debate in listening to the views of the House. It also depends the Chamber”? Because one of the pieces of evidence very much on whether there is time available; there we have heard is that, for example, the assisted dying may not be so much time available in the current debate, where there was a significant lead time before session as there was in the past, so the possibility of that debate was actually held, meant that there was Government debates, Government time for debates, much more engagement with the public about the may be reduced. debate; there was much more time for members to be prepared for the debate. Q153 Nic Dakin: Given that the Backbench Business Sir George Young: Tony Wright did not recommend Committee is listening all the time to the views of the a set day per week in his report. The mathematics do House and is developing its ways of doing that, why not quite work because there are 35 weeks when we not give that time currently being used by sit and there are only 27 days promised in the Government for general debate to the Backbench Chamber, so we could not actually do one day per Business Committee to allocate? week even if we wanted to. Then you have issues like Sir George Young: In a sense we did that, because we the Budget and the Queen’s Speech where you do not gave them more days than those to which they were want the debates interrupted. What I have said to the strictly entitled. I think as a matter of principle the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is if Government should retain the right to have general there are certain set-piece debates that she and her debates. It would be slightly odd if the Backbench Committee want, like pre-European Summit or the Business Committee could have general debates, the Welsh Day, if she will come along at the beginning of opposition parties could have general debates, but the the session and say, “My Committee definitely wants Government could not. It is important we retain the to hold a debate on this subject at a relevant time”, right and exercise it, obviously not as often as we used then we could factor that in as business managers, and to, listening to the views of the House as a whole or do our best to make sure that they did have a date perhaps the requirements of Government. roughly when they wanted it in order to meet that particular set piece. That is an offer that I have made Q154 Karen Bradley: Continuing the topic of the to the Backbench Business Committee, which I repeat general debate, the set-piece debates is something that this afternoon. has come up regularly in our evidence that we have received, with some views that because the set-piece Q156 Karen Bradley: It would not be possible to debates have moved into backbench time they are say at the beginning of a term, shall we phrase it, that being usurped by more topical or, as one of my actually there will be so many days of debate in the colleagues has described them, sexy issues. Do you Chamber in this term and they will be broadly in feel that some of those set-piece debates should weeks one, three, five, seven? actually be within Government time and not part of Sir George Young: No. There are real issues of the backbench time to make sure that they are programming Government business that make that preserved and that we have them on an annual basis? quite difficult. There is the interaction with the House Sir George Young: The short answer is no. I think in of Lords, as the shadow Leader has said, and the paragraph 17 of my evidence I made it clear we would imperatives of getting Government business through resist this. The whole point of giving the time that by particular deadlines. Even Government Ministers used to be allocated for certain set-piece debates to do not have the sort of certainty about their own the Backbench Business Committee is to exercise that legislation that you have implied by giving them a discretion. As you may have heard from the Chair, promise of a certain date some time ahead. initially they were minded to replicate some of the set-piece debates, but they found that they were not Q157 Karen Bradley: Just finally on the timing of asked for, better cases were made for other subjects debates, the days in the Chamber do tend to be on a with more people putting forward those other subjects, Thursday; is there more scope for more days to be and so they moved away from those set-piece debates. earlier in the week so that backbenchers would not It was precisely to allow the backbenchers to use the have the conflict of returning to constituencies time as they wanted that we have not enshrined, either stopping them from being able to take part in the within the Backbench Business Committee, that they debate? have to have the defence debates or, indeed, reserved Sir George Young: I think there are two points on the right for the Government to hold them instead. that. The first is that the trend towards having a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o003_th_12-06-20 CORRECTED BBCom.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 31

20 June 2012 Rt Hon Sir George Young MP

Thursday as a non-voting day began before the You choose from whatever source, or some of the Backbench Business Committee was established in debates granted by the Speaker do not score, as far as the last Parliament. Thursday tended to be the day I am aware, against the Backbench Business when there were not votes, and it may be that that was Committee. The Backbench Business Committee is convenient for Members who have the pull from their time that they decide how to use out of time that has constituency. Thursday is perhaps a better day not to been allocated to them by the Government. I am not have a vote than an earlier day in the week and then sure if I have correctly understood the question, but I you have to vote on a Thursday. The other point is, do not think we would score that against the we allocated 40 days and 17 were not on a Thursday, Backbench Business Committee. so it is not the case that they are all on Thursdays. Sir Roger Gale: I am sorry, I misunderstood this and But again, I will listen to the views of your Committee I apologise for that. The Government’s memorandum on that. There may be a view of the House as a whole says the Government believe that in the case where that they quite like Thursdays as a backbench business is scheduled in accordance with the provision business day. under Standing Order No. 24 that should be taken into account in the allocation of time to the Backbench Q158 Chair: On the subject of giving greater notice Business Committee. of backbench days, could I just ask you to reflect Chair: Paragraph 25. further on that? It is not that long ago that we were Sir George Young: Okay. told we could not be given the business two weeks in advance, that we could not be told in advance when Q160 Sir Roger Gale: I do not understand why, recess dates would be, and yet Leaders of the House because Standing Order No. 24 is not a backbench have managed to grapple with those issues and prerogative. It is a prerogative of any member— deliver. Perhaps you can just reflect a bit further as frontbench or backbench—that seeks the Speaker’s to whether it is possible to give greater notice of the permission to hold the debate. allocation of backbench time. Sir George Young: Yes. The Government’s position is Sir George Young: There is some small print in both that in any case where business of the kinds noted in those undertakings on the second week and also the the previous paragraph, which is Standing Order No. recess dates. I think the small print is subject to the 14, is scheduled in accordance with the provisions of satisfactory progress of Government business. It may Standing Order No. 24, that should be taken into be that informally behind the scenes the Backbench account in the allocation of time to the Backbench Business Committee is given an indication of what might happen beyond the immediate two weeks but, Business Committee. In other words, it may not be Mr Chairman, I will, of course, reflect on the directly deducted, but it should be taken into account proposition you have put to me. when we look at the score towards the end of a Chair: Thank you. session. Sir Roger Gale: I do not think the Committee is going to understand that. Q159 Sir Roger Gale: One of the arguments Sir George Young: I am very happy to write and advanced for not granting the minority parties a place on the Backbench Committee was that effectively they clarify this at a later stage. are frontbenchers because they all have frontbench responsibilities. We were dealing with anomalies Q161 Sir Roger Gale: I think that would be awfully earlier; my understanding is that opposition helpful if you could. Just pursuant to that, but it is a frontbench spokesmen are allowed to apply for relatively minor issue because it does not happen very emergency debates under Standing Order No. 24 as often, my understanding is the reports from Standards frontbenchers. If that is so and a Speaker grants a and Privileges Committee are also debated in Standing Order No. 24 debate and it is asked for by a backbench time, is that right? frontbencher, why are they held in backbench time? Sir George Young: Yes, they do score as backbench Sir George Young: Sorry, I have not quite understood time. that question. Sir Roger Gale: A Standing Order No. 24 application Q162 Sir Roger Gale: Why? made possibly by a frontbencher from the opposition Sir George Young: Because it is essentially House benches is deemed as being held in backbench time. business. A report from Standards and Privileges is It is deducted from the allocation of time. nothing to do with the Government at all; it is right at Sir George Young: Oh, I see. Is that right? I am not the heart of business of the House. When the 35 days sure that is the case. and the 27 were allocated, the time devoted to select Chair: No, that is, I think, what you are proposing. I committee reports was taken into account. The key think the current scenario is that it is not backbench thing is that if there is a report from Standards and time. As I understand it, that is what the Government Privileges, it should be debated promptly, and the is proposing, that it be backbench time in future. I Government will undertake to find that time to make think Sir Roger’s point is why that should be. that debate possible. The member should obviously Sir George Young: I am not sure that is the not be left in suspense. We will then have a discussion Government’s position. I will check. Backbench time with the Backbench Business Committee as to how it is meant for the general debates that used to be held, scores, but the theory is quite clear. This is not the plus the time for the set-piece debates. There is a grey Government’s legislative programme. It is not area as to what is backbench and what is frontbench. Government business. It is House business and, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o003_th_12-06-20 CORRECTED BBCom.xml

Ev 32 Procedure Committee: Evidence

20 June 2012 Rt Hon Sir George Young MP therefore, it should come under backbench business the Government, if necessary, tabling business allocation. motions for backbench business if they were asked to do so by the Committee? Q163 Sir Roger Gale: I am sorry, Sir George, I Sir George Young: Yes. The answer to the second understand what you are saying, but there has to be a question is yes. We did so once in order to protect, I difference between House business, which is matters think, the debate on Hillsborough. We tabled a relating to the House of Commons that are not strictly business motion in order to restrict the length of the Government business like they are not legislation, and time of the debate prior to it. It was blocked by a backbench business. The Wright Committee’s member of the Backbench Business Committee. But recommendations originally were designed to create we tried. Since then I understand from the evidence time for backbenchers to debate issues relevant to the that the Chair has given is that she quite likes the backbench. The Standards and Privileges Committee, flexible arrangement, but if they came along and asked which does a hugely valuable job, is very important us to get a business motion through on the nod, as we and must be debated, I accept all of that, but it cannot did before, we would assist. be described as backbench business, can it? Sir George Young: The time is allocated to include Q166 John Hemming: I think this is the distinction debates on select committee reports. The Backbench of the nature of business motions and business Business Committee have used some of the time to motions on the nod as opposed to business motions debate select committee reports. A report of the tabled on the day. Now, obviously a business motion Standards and Privileges Committee is a select tabled by a minister of the Crown has the advantage committee report of the House and, therefore, it is from the point of view of managing business that it in right to include it within the allocation of time itself has an inbuilt time limit of three hours after allocated to the Backbench Business Committee. which the Speaker puts it to the vote. Obviously, it is possible to have other motions that would schedule Q164 John Hemming: On this particular point, business, but they would not have that advantage of however, my understanding is that the relevant automatically closing. Would you see any difficulty Standing Order, which off the top of my head is with that? probably No. 14—whichever one creates the Sir George Young: I think the Government would like Backbench Business Committee—defines the time to retain control of business motions, and we would that is used to refer matters to particularly the do so in conjunction with the Backbench Business privileges part of the Standards and Privileges Committee rather than cede to them the right to put Committee as being specifically not backbench time. business motions on the Order Paper. That remains In other words, we have this situation where where we are. references to the Privileges Committee are not backbench time, but things that come back from it are. Q167 John Hemming: My understanding is that Now, one would presume they are both House motions timetabling business of the House can already business so is there an explanation as to the logic of be tabled by other than the Government, it is just that that? they do not automatically close. You just need a Sir George Young: I think it would be wrong to closure motion to close the business. deduct from the Backbench Business Committee the Sir George Young: I do not think this is an area of time a Member spent asking Mr Speaker to refer contention between the Backbench Business something to the Standards and Privileges Committee. Committee and the Government. If they want a That is wholly outwith the control of the Backbench business motion, they can come and ask for it. As I Business Committee. Again, I think it is right to say understand it, at the moment the Chair of the that Standards and Privileges reports, along with Backbench Business Committee quite likes the reports from other select committees, in principle flexible way that they manage their time by general should come out of the Backbench Business agreement. They have not come to me and asked for Committee’s allocation. When the allocation was business motions. made, we specifically knew that Standards and Privileges would have to come out of that allocation. Q168 John Hemming: The one business motion was an “on the nod” one rather than one of the ones tabled Q165 Mr Nuttall: There have been occasions when on the day that has to be voted on within three hours. backbench business would have benefited from being Do you think the Government would agree to the one subject to a business motion. Now, the present that is voted on on the day? Chairman of the Committee has indicated that Sir George Young: In the Government’s name? personally she would be reluctant to start down the John Hemming: Yes. road of giving the Backbench Business Committee Sir George Young: As long as the Government put powers to put down their own business motions. But down the motion, then we are content. We want to just to put on the record your own views, would you retain ownership of the time of the House if we can. support such a change, i.e. giving the Backbench Business Committee the power to table business Q169 Jacob Rees-Mogg: Moving on to Westminster motions in order to regulate the debate? Also, if I Hall, the Government considers that Westminster Hall could deal with the second point at the same time and provides a forum for debate of equivalent value to the follow up by saying that regardless of the answer to floor of the House. Now, I cannot speak from personal that question, would you personally be in favour of experience because I have never actually spoken in cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_o003_th_12-06-20 CORRECTED BBCom.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 33

20 June 2012 Rt Hon Sir George Young MP

Westminster Hall, but I wondered if to ensure that this Q171 Chair: Have you decided yet out of whose status was a fact whether the Government would be time a debate on sitting hours should be taken? willing to get Cabinet ministers to attend debates Sir George Young: On the debate on sitting hours, there. and I commend your Committee on producing it—I Sir George Young: Yes, and this is something that I confess I have not read it from cover to cover—I will raise with my colleagues to try to move more revert to my negotiating position that this is a report of towards equality of status by encouraging, where a select committee. We would expect the Backbench appropriate, Cabinet ministers to reply to debates in Business Committee, therefore, to ﬁnd time for such Westminster Hall. a debate.

Q170 Jacob Rees-Mogg: Do you think there are any Q172 Chair: I hope you will assist them to do so. other things that could be done to raise the status of Do you wish to add anything to the answers you have Westminster Hall, or is it even a good idea to raise the already given? status of Westminster Hall? Might that not devalue the Sir George Young: No. I will clarify the bouncer that status of the floor of the House? was bowled by Sir Roger on Standing Orders and do Sir George Young: I think the status of Westminster that in writing at an early date. Hall, Mr Rees-Mogg, would be elevated if you spoke in it. Q173 Chair: The Committee is obliged to you for Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is very flattering. that and for your evidence in general and for making Sir George Young: But some of the best debates have our job easier in reaching a conclusion on this matter. actually taken place in Westminster Hall: the cycling As I said to the other witnesses, if, in addition to debate, very well attended; a debate on football clubs, writing to us on that specific point, there is anything very well attended. It is a slightly different forum in else that occurs to you after today, please do add that that, as you know, it is horseshoe rather than into your letter. confrontational so the tone is slightly different. That Sir George Young: I am much obliged. tone I think is more appropriate for some of the Chair: Thank you for your attendance. debates that are held there. I see it as a parallel debating chamber. I have floated with your Committee the idea of statements being taken in Westminster Hall. I take your point about Cabinet ministers answering debates where appropriate. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_w005_021734_w013_mick_P 23 Written ev from the BBB Cttee.xml

Ev 34 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Written evidence

Written evidence submitted by Richard Ottaway MP (P 262, 2010–12) As you will probably be aware, the Backbench Business Committee allowed me the opportunity of a full day’s debate in the Chamber on 27 March on the topic of assisted suicide. I believe the debate was a very successful example of how such a topic should be debated in backbench time. However there are two points which the experience of the debate highlighted, and which I would invite the Procedure Committee to consider in its review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee. The first is timing. I specifically asked the Backbench Business Committee to allow a sufficient time between the announcement of the date and subject of the debate and the actual day of the debate for interested parties outside and inside the House to consider the issue, marshal their arguments and make their cases to MPs. With such a complex and sensitive topic, I felt that this was only fair to all concerned, and would tend to enhance the quality of the debate when it took place. The only way in which this proved possible was for the Backbench Business Committee to allocate the day before the Easter recess which would traditionally have been devoted to a general debate on many different topics. It would clearly be better if the Backbench Business Committee were able to plan its debates some weeks in advance, giving the House and others plenty of notice of topics so that interested Members could plan their diaries and others could have time to make their views known to their MPs. The second is a more technical matter. Three amendments were tabled to my motion. As there are different rules for BBBC motions this created a dilemma for the Speaker about selection and for the House about the conduct of the debate on the day. It seemed quite likely at the start of the debate that only one of the two proffered amendments would be able to be voted on before the moment of interruption. In the event, the debate was arranged to end in a way that enabled the second amendment to be considered, but this was by chance rather than design. I think it would have been very undesirable if, in the eyes of the public, the House had been prevented from considering all the alternative propositions before it by the effect of arcane procedural requirements. It seems to me that it would be desirable for the Backbench Business Committee to be able to organise a debate on a complex matter to enable the House to vote, if necessary, in such a way as to establish where the true majority opinion lay. When the Government is proposing some complex matter for decision, it can put forward a business motion to regulate a debate so that a vote is guaranteed at the conclusion of debate and all amendments selected by the Speaker can, if the movers wish, be moved and decided by the House. The Backbench Business cannot do this, and I believe that some provision for it to propose such a motion regulating the subsequent business at a sitting would be a useful and sensible power to enable backbench business to be conducted effectively. April 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Rt Hon Sir George Young MP, Leader of the House of Commons (P 266, 2010–12) Introduction and Overview 1. The Coalition Agreement stated that the Government would bring forward proposals for “the proposed committee for management of backbench business”. In moving the motions which led to the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee on 15 June 2010, the Leader of the House said: “For the first time in over a century, the House will be given control over significant parts of its own agenda.”1 The Government welcome the opportunity to contribute to the review and to comment on the implications of a formal body of the House assuming control over significant parts of the House’s agenda. 2. The Government welcome the fact that the outcome of the House’s decision on 15 June 2010 has been to enable the House to debate a wide range of matters of importance which might not have been debated under the previous arrangements whereby the Government had exclusive control over general debates and primary control over debate on amendable, non-legislative motions. Several of the debates chosen by the Backbench Business Committee have helped to raise the public profile of the House of Commons, and increased public awareness of the crucial role of the House in holding the Executive to account. 3. Time in the House of Commons, most notably on the floor of the House, but also in Westminster Hall, is at a premium. Demand for the use of that time is always likely to exceed supply, and the Government believe that the situation in which demand for use of backbench time on the floor of the House exceeds supply is both healthy and likely to be ever present. 1 HC Deb, 15 June 2010, col 779. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_w005_021734_w013_mick_P 23 Written ev from the BBB Cttee.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 35

4. In deciding on the allocation of time between categories of business, consideration has to be given to the need to ensure that adequate time is available for the scrutiny of government legislation. The Government has taken steps to ensure that adequate time is available for the scrutiny of its legislation, most notably by the provision of more time for the report stage of government bills than was available under the previous Administration. Backbenchers have a strong and legitimate interest in all of the types of business which are allocated in the House. Time allocated by the Government very often provides opportunities for backbenchers to carry out their scrutiny role. Backbenchers have a vital interest in the provision of adequate time for the scrutiny of government legislation. 5. Matters of very great importance can be debated in backbench business time, just as they can be debated in government time or on opposition days. Backbench business is characterised by the fact that it takes place in time allotted to the Backbench Business Committee and covers subjects determined by that Committee. 6. Similarly, the Government, along with the Ofﬁcial Opposition, have a legitimate interest in the business under debate in backbench business time and in the outcome of that debate. This applies particularly to proposed motions with a direct effect (such as motions to amend the Standing Orders of the House) and motions on matters of substantial political interest.

Issues relating to Election and Composition 7. In a response to an earlier report of the Procedure Committee (on 2010 elections for positions in the House) sent to the Committee prior to the announcement by the Committee of the current inquiry and the timing of that inquiry, the Government stated: “the Government believe that it would be appropriate for the House to address the anomaly whereby members of the Backbench Business Committee other than the Chair (unlike those of other select committees) are elected by the House as a whole rather than by Members of the political party to which they belong before the next elections of members.” In view of the fact that the membership of the Committee will need to be determined early in the next session, the Government brought forward proposals to enable the House to reach a decision on this and related matters (including matters which cannot be debated in Backbench Business time because they involve amendment of Standing Order No 152J). The Government’s policy on the ﬁrst three issues identiﬁed in the terms of reference for the Committee’s inquiry were set out in the speech by the Deputy Leader of the House in the course of the debate which took place on 12 March.

The Time Available in the Chamber and its Allocation 8. The Standing Orders agreed by the House on 15 June 2011 allocated a minimum of 27 days on the floor of the House to Backbench Business in the course of a session. A normal session is likely to comprise around 150 sitting days. Of these days, 13 are sitting Fridays on which private Members’ bills have precedence, so that only around 137 will be available to the Government for allocation. The backbench business allocation in a session of normal length is thus 27 days out of 137, or around one in five days. Given that only four days a week are available to be allocated, this would equate to less than one day per sitting week. 9. The 2010–12 Session has been an unusual session in two respects. First, the Backbench Business Committee was not operational for the best part of two months at the beginning of the session. Second, the session was of unusual length, initially as a result of the General Election and subsequently as a result of the move to Spring-to-Spring sessions. In consequence, the Government has allocated considerably more days to the Backbench Business Committee than is provided for under Standing Orders. Up to the end of March 2012, more than 40 days had been allocated on the floor of the House. 10. The Government are fully committed to meeting the requirement to provide the equivalent of 27 days in the House for Backbench Business in a session of normal length. The Government nevertheless believe that it would be premature to reach conclusions on the amount of time available for Backbench Business on the floor of the House until the House has had experience of the effects of the current allocation in at least one session of normal length. 11. In allocating Backbench Business time on the floor of the House, the Government has to take account of a range of factors, including: (a) the allocation of 20 opposition days, which takes place in consultation with the parties concerned through the “usual channels”; (b) the allocation of three estimates days to the Liaison Committee, which have to be allocated in specific time windows between the publication of Estimates documents and dates specified in the Standing Orders in the spring and summer; (c) the demands on the volume and pattern of time for government business, including the demands which flow from the timing of particular events, such as the Budget and the Queen’s Speech, and from the role of the House of Lords in the passage of legislation; and (d) the need to take account of the availability of ministers and other Members to participate in debates. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_w005_021734_w013_mick_P 23 Written ev from the BBB Cttee.xml

Ev 36 Procedure Committee: Evidence

12. The House of Commons Reform Committee considered the issue of whether a set day of the week should be allocated to the Backbench Business Committee. As that Committee observed, to do so “would import a degree of rigidity ... and it might also tend to rule out shorter items of backbench business being taken on days otherwise given over to ministerial business”. In addition, as already noted, the number of days allocated to Backbench Business under the Standing Orders agreed on 15 June 2010 does not equate to the equivalent of one sitting day per week. The Government believe that it would be wrong to reduce the flexibility desirable for all interested parties by introducing a presumption that Backbench Business should take place on a certain day of the week. 13. The time in which previous Governments generally scheduled debates of the following kinds is now allotted to the Backbench Business Committee: — 5 days for defence debates; — 2 days for pre-European Council debates; — 2 half-days on recent reports of the Committee of Public Accounts; — 1 day on the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee; — 1 day on Welsh Affairs; — 1 day to mark International Women’s Day; and — 15 days for other debates assessed by the House of Commons Reform Committee as being non- ministerial in character. 14. The Backbench Business Committee itself acknowledged that it had inherited the time previously available to Governments for the debates covered by the first 11 days listed in the previous paragraph, as well as referring specifically to four days for pre-recess adjournment debates and a day for Fisheries.2 In the case of pre-European Council debates, the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee stated on 26 January 2012 that “the Backbench Business Committee now has such debates within its remit”.3 15. As stated by the Leader of the House on 9 February 2012, the Government are sympathetic to the proposition that certain days could be provisionally allocated at an early stage to “honour a commitment in respect of international women’s day, the pre-EU Council debates, St David’s Day and other such events”.4 16. Accordingly, the Government will continue to provide days to the Backbench Business Committee which have regard to the inherited responsibilities of the Backbench Business Committee for the time for debate on the matters referred to in paragraph 13 and to the appropriate timing for debates on certain of those matters. 17. There should be no expectation in future sessions of normal length that the Government will provide time for set piece general debates on subjects for which the Backbench Business Committee has inherited responsibility. 18. The Government will seek to maintain its record of giving early notice of days to be allocated for Backbench Business. To give greater certainty, in cases where the Backbench Business Committee allocate days or part of them to substantive motions, there should be an expectation that Members give good notice, preferably at least three sitting says, of the final motion on the Order Paper. The Procedure Committee may like to reflect whether it would be for the convenience of the House that any amendment should usually be tabled at least two sitting days before the day of debate.

Westminster Hall 19. Westminster Hall provides a very important forum for debate. Except in cases where the House is being asked to come to a decision, Westminster Hall provides a forum for debate of equivalent value to the ﬂoor of the House. There are several examples, the most recent being the debate on Cycling allocated by the Backbench Business Committee which took place on Thursday 23 February 2012, when the debate in Westminster Hall has been better attended and of wider public interest than a debate in the main Chamber. 20. The Government has relinquished control over time in Westminster Hall, most notably Thursdays. Twenty half-days are allotted to the Liaison Committee, with the balance of around 14 half-days allotted to the Backbench Business Committee. 21. The Government has indicated in its response to the Committee’s Seventh Report of the current session on e-petitions that it would support a proposal to allow the backbench Business Committee to schedule debates on e-petitions between 4.30 pm and 7.30 pm on a Monday in Westminster Hall, when the House is sitting, provided that this was on a pilot basis, with the House being asked to come to a subsequent decision after a full evaluation of the pilot. 22. The Government believe that, if the House were to consider other proposals for an increase in the time available in Westminster Hall, it should consider options for the allocation and use of that time other than 2 Backbench Business Committee, First Special Report of Session 2010–12, Provisional Approach: Session 2010–11, HC 334, para 6. 3 HC Deb, 26 January 2012, col 430. 4 HC Deb, 9 February 2012, col 487. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_w005_021734_w013_mick_P 23 Written ev from the BBB Cttee.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 37

Backbench Business. This might include a pilot for the making of certain oral statements in Westminster Hall which would not otherwise be made orally or other innovative ways to hold the Government to account.

The Process by which the Committee Determines the Matters to be Debated in Backbench Time, and the Relationship to Government Business 23. The Government believe that it would not be appropriate for Parliamentary Private Secretaries to make representations to the Backbench Business Committee on business for which the Minister or Ministers whom they serve are responsible. However, the Government consider that there should be no barrier to parliamentary private secretaries making representations on other issues. 24. Under Standing Order No. 14 as amended on 15 June 2010, Backbench Business is deﬁned by exclusion. The same does not apply to government business (subject to the exclusion from possible government business of topical debates under Standing Order No 24A and the business in Westminster Hall already referred to). The Government will continue to schedule business of various kinds as it considers appropriate, subject to the point already made that there should be no expectation that the Government should schedule debates on the subjects which form part of the inherited responsibilities of the Backbench Business Committee. 25. The Government believe that, in any case where business of the kinds noted in the previous paragraph is scheduled in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No 24, that should be taken into account in the allocation of time to the Backbench Business Committee. 26 April 2012

Written evidence submitted by Natascha Engel MP (P 08, 2012–13) This memorandum is being submitted to the Procedure Committee in a personal capacity. These are my views and not necessarily the views of the Committee. The Backbench Business Committee has already submitted its end-of-term report to the Procedure Committee’s review. This raised a number of challenges and outlined the problems that we have encountered. Chief amongst those is the way we deal with e-petitions. e-petitions E-petitions were introduced by the Government in all good faith to improve communications and provide direct access by members of the public to Parliament. The Backbench Business Committee, in contrast, was established to give backbenchers control over a small part of the Parliamentary agenda in order to hold the Executive to account better. In addition, the Government controls all parts of the e-petitioning process until an arbitrary 100,000 signatures are reached at which point responsibility for dealing with the petition and petitioners falls to the Backbench Business Committee. We need urgently to make this process work and recoup some of the lost faith in the system. The Procedure Committee produced an excellent report with recommendations which, had they been fully implemented, would have avoided the problems we face today. In the context of that report, my personal recommendation would be to: — Set up a petitions committee to deal with paper and e-petitions on the model of the petitions committee in the Scottish Parliament. — Focus the petitioning on Parliament as opposed to Government (which a dedicated Petitions Committee would do). — Allow this dedicated committee to become the initial contact point for anyone thinking of starting a petition. — Have clerks and library staff support the committee in conjunction with the Outreach and Education Units to ensure that the focus would be on ensuring that anyone who contacted Parliament to petition it would learn about the Parliamentary processes with the express purpose of being able to inﬂuence those processes better. — Treat paper and e-petitions the same way. — Remove the arbitrary threshold of 100,000 signatures. It would be for the Petitions Committee to decide how to deal with each petition in correspondence with the petitioners. I do not think that MPs should be allowed to sign or start petitions. Some of the most successful petitions have been started by MPs, but I think that we need to establish the principle that this is about Members of the Public telling Members of Parliament what they think. MPs have many avenues and opportunities to promote and advance their campaigns. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-11-2012 14:43] Job: 021735 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021735/021735_w005_021734_w013_mick_P 23 Written ev from the BBB Cttee.xml

Ev 38 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Minority Party Representation In spite of the Standing Order change brought forward by the Government, the issue of minority party representation on the Backbench Business Committee has not yet been resolved. The minority parties have agreements with other select committees onto which they co-opt full members and I believe the same should be done on the Backbench Business Committee. Once a place had been created, it would be up to the minority parties to nominate a member. If the concern is that the Government would lose its majority on the Backbench Business Committee, the membership could be increased, although in fact under a coalition, the Government has a majority of ﬁve (four Conservatives plus one Liberal Democrat) versus two opposition (two Labour members plus Labour chair with casting vote only). A minority party member would therefore not affect the majority. The Backbench Business Committee in this session as in the last comprises exclusively Members who represent seats in England. Full minority party representation would therefore give the Committee a wider UK reach. June 2012

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Sir George Young MP, Leader of the House of Commons (P 22, 2012–13) I promised to write to you during my oral evidence session with the Committee on 20 June, in order to clarify an answer I gave in response to Sir Roger Gale MP. The question related to the section of the written evidence provided by the Government which states that “where business is scheduled in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 24, that should be taken into account in the allocation of time to the Backbench Business Committee.” The context of that evidence is that in a normal session of around 150 days, there are only 137 available to the Government for allocation. Of these, a set number of days in the Chamber are set aside under provisions in Standing Orders, including at least 27 days for the Backbench Business Committee and 20 days for opposition business. Although a decision to provide time, under Standing Order No. 24, will not normally have an impact on the overall allocation of time available to the Backbench Business Committee (or indeed for opposition business), there should not be a presumption that the Government will compensate those affected by such decisions, that are outside of its control, either in providing extra time, or in providing time at an earlier opportunity than would otherwise have been expected. Should the situation arise where the number of debates under Standing Order No. 24 were signiﬁcantly to increase, then the Government would not expect its legislative programme to be disproportionately affected in relation to the allocation of days for business before the House. For the same reason, the Government would oppose any proposal that injury time should be made available to compensate for either urgent questions that are granted, or for ministerial statements that are made. June 2012

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Natascha Engel MP, Chair, Backbench Business Committee (P 23, 2012–13) Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence to your Committee on the operation of the Backbench Business Committee, and for your subsequent letter asking whether we would wish to take responsibility for scheduling adjournment debates in Westminster Hall. The Backbench Business Committee would certainly not wish to, or be capable of scheduling all the Westminster Hall debates currently determined by the Speaker. There are 10 debate slots available each week and it would represent an impractical increase in workload for us to allocate these through the “bidding” system we use. It has been suggested that we could take responsibility for one or two of the 90 minute debates held in Westminster Hall each week. This certainly seems a more practical proposition and would enable us to schedule more of the debates brought to us by backbenchers. However, before taking this step, I would want to ensure that sufﬁcient consultation had taken place with all backbenchers. These debates represent time which is already at the disposal of backbenchers and I am aware that many colleagues value the existing system of allocation by ballot. Of course, the Backbench Business Committee supports the proposal made by the Procedure Committee in its report on Debates on Government e-Petitions for debates on e-petitions to take place in Westminster Hall on a Monday afternoon, as this would make additional time available for debate by backbenchers. July 2012

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Ofﬁce Limited 11/2012 021735 19585

PEFC/16-33-622