Tuesday 22 July 2008

Leader of the House

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Review of Topical Debates

Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal and Minster for Women (Harriet Harman):  I am today publishing the outcome of my review into the operation of topical debates. I announced the review on 7 February, following their introduction in November 2007, on an experimental basis for the 2007-08 session. My intention is to place topical debates on a permanent basis and to bring forward a motion before the end of the session for the decision of the House.

Background

On 25 October 2007 the House welcomed the report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, 'Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the backbench Member' , and approved the proposals for change set out in the Government's response  to the report introducing topical debates on an experimental basis for the 2007-08 session.

In a Written Ministerial Statement on the 12 November 2007, I set out the process for applying for such a debate, including the criteria on which they would be chosen. The first topical debate, on Immigration, took place on 15 November 2007. (A full list of debates is below).

The review

I am grateful to all Members who submitted their views to me, either in writing or on the floor of the House during business questions.  Comments fell into three main areas; the choice of subject for debate (including the issue of the transparency of that process); the scheduling of debates and the time limit on speeches.

Choice of subject for debate

In its report the Modernisation Committee said that 'subjects for topical debates would be announced by the Leader of the House following consultation with the Business Managers'.  In its response to the report the Government recognised that the selection of debate would be announced by the Leader of the House following representations from opposition parties and backbenchers.

Several alternatives to this approach have been proposed. 

1. Choosing the topic for debate via a ballot, as is the case for daily adjournment debates and some Westminster Hall debates, is one suggestion.  The Government remain convinced that a ballot runs the risk that the chosen subject may not necessarily meet the required criteria that the issue is genuinely 'regional, national or international' or allow for occasions where the House has had other opportunities to debate the issue. Also suggested was the topic of debate being chosen by a link to the number of names listed for a particular issue on either the Number 10 petitions website or for Early Day Motions.  We believe this would give rise to similar problems.

2. The Procedure Committee proposed a business committee to take the decision, comprising the business managers together with backbenchers (one of whom would chair the committee).  The Government does not consider that formalisation of the current informal processes in this way would be an improvement on the present process, particularly given the need to retain a level of flexibility in managing the time on the floor of the House.

3. A further proposal raised during the weekly business statement, was that the Speaker should choose the topic.  The Government does not support this view, as the Speaker would not wish to become involved in choosing a debate in Government time or adjudicating on the criteria, which could raise questions over his impartiality.

As the Modernisation Committee proposed, topical debates involve no increase to the overall time that the House sits or any alteration to the nature of other business taken on those days when topical debates take place, which continue to be used for main business. Topical debates take place therefore within Government time. The original approach recommended by the Committee and endorsed by the House, of the final choice of subject resting with the Leader of the House after consultations, is consistent with this.

Transparency

Building on the increased transparency I announced in February (where we would publish a list of all subjects proposed for debate on a quarterly basis),   I now propose that these lists should be produced on a monthly basis. 

Scheduling of debates

The success of topical debates is dependent on backbenchers suggesting and attending them.  The Procedure Committee evidence stated that 'there are advantages with a predictable slot for topical debates....We believe, however, that taking them on Thursday has led to lower levels of participation than could have been expected on other days.' The Government agree.  We will therefore look for opportunities to schedule topical debates on days other than a Thursday, subject to other business management considerations.

Time limits

A concern has been raised regarding the time allocated to the second largest opposition party.  Under Standing Order No. 24A, the governing party and the main opposition party currently have up to 10 minutes to speak (plus an additional minute for each intervention to a maximum of 10).  In contrast, the spokesperson for the second largest opposition party is limited to six minutes (plus an additional minute for each intervention to a maximum of six).  The effect of this, in topical debates where no other time limits are set, is that the spokesperson for the second largest opposition party has less time than backbench Members speaking in the debate. To address this I propose that the Standing Orders should be amended to limit all front-bench speeches to no more than 10 minutes each, with a reduction in the time allotted for interventions from a maximum of 10 minutes to five minutes.  This would reflect the principle used for other debates and would increase the overall time available for backbenchers, the control of this time being a matter for the Speaker under Standing Order No. 47.

Next steps

I have considered all representations. The Government believe that topical debates should continue, with the Leader of the House, continuing to choose and announce the topic for debate.

Topical debates will continue to provide a forum for important debates on a wide range of issues.  I urge backbenchers to take the opportunity to request debates.  This is the single biggest measure that will contribute to their future success.