kind of training that can be provided. >> okay, very good. thank you. the time of the gentleman has expired in the second round is over. i appreciate very very much the panel for sitting through that second round and i also appreciate sometimes getting off course a little bit ago that happens. we are trying to get the information. before he dismissed the first panel though, i do want to make a short statement. throughout this hearing, i have refrained from commenting on the timing of the releases of the incidence of noncompliance that were released last night. the fact is that director bromwich stated in september that the citations would be released the week of our original hearing, which of course was three weeks ago. before it was postponed, when obviously we had some problems with witnesses.

but now that the citations were delayed, and they are actually released last night, which is literally hours before this congressional committee held an oversight hearing on this investigation report. so i have got serious questions about the timing of these actions and whether or not they were an effort by the executive branch to time legal penalties to influence, a fact or potentially interfere with the official act to the days of the legislative branch? i have not asked these questions during this hearing because i wanted to stay true to what i thought was the original intent and purpose, which is to hear directly from the investigators of this report. and further i refrained, because i don't believe anything that could be said at this hearing was going to provide us satisfactory answer as to whether there is an effort or intent to time these penalties to effect to these official hearings. so i will be sending written

questions and requests for documents to provide complete answers to the question of the timing of this. the fact that the citations were two originally occurred the week of the first hearing and subsequently happened just last night before this hearing strikes me as one of extreme coincidence. perhaps it is, and i intend to find out when i asked for the requests so with that, i will dismiss the first panel and thank you very very much for coming. if there are further follow-up questions, i would ask each of you to respond in a very timely manner as you possibly can. so i dismiss the first panel and at the same time call the second panel.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> as i mentioned i want to call the second panel. mr. ray dempsey, mr. bill mr. james beeman. i hope i said that correctly.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i am very pleased to have our next panel. we have mr. ray dempsey, vice president of bp america, mr. bill ambrose, managing director of north american division of transocean, mr. james bement. did i say that correctly? vice president of sperry drilling which is a division of halliburton. you were in the audience and you saw the ground rules are as far

as the timing and your full statement will appear in the record. when the green light is on, you are doing very fine and when the yellow light comes on it means you have a minute and when the red light comes on at teens that your time is expired. i would ask if you could be as close to that as possible. as a programming note, we anticipate votes sometime between 1:00 and 1:15. if this wraps up before then that will be fine. otherwise we will have votes and then come back immediately after the votes. we can't go longer than 4:00. i don't anticipate that happening but i just want to give a heads-up to everybody. but that mr. dempsey you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. chairman hastings, members of the committee, my name is ray dempsey and i'm vice president for bp america. i've worked for bp for more than 20 years. ifill a variety of management and operational worlds and

engineering strategy and financial areas. during the response, i oversaw the st. petersburg florida joint information center where bp worked with the coast guard and other federal and state government representatives to share information on spill related efforts. the deepwater horizon accident was a tragic event that profoundly affected us all. from the outset, bp has been committed and remains committed today to meeting our obligations in the gulf coast. while we appreciate the committee's attention to the joint investigation report, given the ongoing litigation and multiple investigations, bp cannot discuss details regarding findings of their report. that said i will do my best to answer your questions and to convey to you the actions bp has taken since the accident. the joint investigation team like every official report previously released, makes clear that the deepwater horizon accident was complex. it resulted from a number of interrelated causes involving

multiple parties, including bp, transocean and halliburton. that finding was also consistent with the report of bp's on investigation commission immediately after the accident and released publicly more than a year ago. while we received a communication from doi last night and are in the process of reviewing it, the issuance of notices of noncompliance dbp, transocean and halliburton makes clear the contractors like operators, responsible for properly conducting their deepwater drilling activities. and they are accountable to the u.s. government and the american public for their conduct. we are dedicated to applying the lessons of the accident. in september 2010, bp announced the establishment of a new centralized safety and operational risk organization. one of the objectives is to provide an independent check on safety critical operational decisions by one, setting clear

standards, to, providing expert scrutiny of safety and risk independent of line managers and advising examining and auditing operations. three, providing technical support to the businesses and four, intervening and escalating as appropriate where cracked of action is needed. in addition, bp has implemented on a voluntary basis new performance standards applicable to our deep water offshore drilling operations in the gulf of mexico that go beyond existing regulatory requirements. the standards address preventers, third-party verification of blowout preventer testing and maintenance, requirements for laboratory testing of certain cement slurries and enhance measures for oil spill response. bp has also voluntarily undertaken several additional actions to enhance safety. these include establishing a real-time drilling operations center in our houston office, collaborating with spill response groups to augment and enhance industry response

technology and capabilities, joining the marines containment corporation and making available to it bp's relevant containment knowledge and equipment. and working with government regulators and others focusing on a lot her banter assistance. fully expect our contractors to do their jobs safely and in full compliance with all applicable government regulations. notwithstanding this expectation, bp is conducting a thorough review of the contractors we use in drilling operations as well as the measures we use to ensure contractor compliance with safety and quality standards. from the outset, bp took action to contain and respond to the spill. to restore the effective environment and pay legitimate claims. we establish a 20 billion-dollar trust available to satisfy legitimate individual and business claims, state and local government claims, final judgments and settlements, state and local response costs and natural resources damages and

related costs. today, bp is paid more than $7 billion in individual business and government claims and advances. bp is also committed significant amount to initiatives beyond paying claims received under the oil pollution act of 1990. for example we voluntarily committed a billion dollars to find early restoration projects, more than $250 million per tourism and seafood testing and marketing and $500 million to the gulf of mexico research initiative for an independent study the environmental and public health impacts of the accident. bp deeply regrets the deepwater horizon accident and we dedicate ourselves to meeting our commitments in the gulf coast and to applying the lessons learned from this accident. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much mr. dempsey. next we will recognize mr. bill ambrose managing director of north american division of transocean. mr. ambrose you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman hastings, other members of the committee thank

you for the opportunity to be appear a pair appear before a panel today. my name is bill ambrose. in the managing director for north american division of transocean off chart drilling deep water inc.. i also led transocean's internal investigation into the condo incident. of april 20, 2010. the findings of that investigation were published in june of 2011. i'm grateful for the opportunity to highlight some of those the committee today as the committee reviews the final reports of ballmer and the u.s. coast guard's joint investigation team. first and foremost let me say the last 17 months have been a time of great sorrow and reflection for a company. nothing is more important to transocean than the safety of our people. and our crewmembers. our thoughts and prayers continue with the widows, parents and children of the 11 that we lost. this period has been one of intense effort on the part of

our company and numerous investigative bodies and oversight entities including this committee to get to the bottom of what caused this tragedy. to that end, transocean formed an investigative team comprised of dedicated transocean personnel and numerous independent industry experts. transocean provided the investigation team with the resources necessary to produce a thorough investigation of the incident. following the incident, transocean issued alert 114 to its global fleet to ensure b.o.p.s commandants reflect the current arrangement of each rig's d.o.t.. alert 114 reinforced our emergency response preparedness. way of also develop standardized procedures for conducting negative tests for operators and consulting and consultation with their customers enhanced enhance their well integrity guidelines. further the company has expanded the scope of its internal audit and assessment program and updated its well-controlled manual to reflect lessons learned.

we continued to study the appropriateness and reliability of acoustic control systems for b.o.p.'s and continue to evaluate potential equipment and procedures for kit detection and handling of gas in the riser. transocean remains ready and willing to assist your committee is this important work moves forward however we are unable to respond to the specific findings and conclusions of the u.s. coast guard and bomer reports. the joint joint team convening order incorporates for both the u.s. coast guard and bomer the provisions of 46 u. s. c. section 6308a which prohibits the use of reports or any use of reports in any proceedings other than the ministry to proceedings initiated by the united states. this bomer report acknowledges this limitation on page 10 where it states quote,, the convening order provides the relevant statute and regulations relating to both u.s. coast guard and bomer, govern the jit and the git public hearings conducted in

accordance with u.s. coast guard rules and procedures relating to marine investigations. lastly, the bomer proceedings are still active in the litigation process and therefore i cannot discuss them. again on behalf of transocean i'm pleased to discuss the facts as we know them, to further understanding of what occurred on the night of april 20, 2010. and what we can do to prevent its recurrence. thank you. >> thank you mr. ambrose. next we recognize mr. james bement vice president of sperry drilling which is a part of halliburton. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you chairman hastings, ranking member markey and members of the committee. thank you for the invitation to testify today. as one of my colleagues made clear in our company's first appearance before congress in may, 2010, halliburton looks forward to continuing to work with congress to understand what happened at macondo. and what elective -- collectively we can do in the

future to ensure oil and gas production in the united states is undertaken in the safest most environmentally responsible manner possible. i want to again express my condolences to the families who lost loved ones. weibel never forget the deaths, injuries suffered, and members of our industry nor the consequences that the oil spill had on people living and working in the gulf of mexico region. in the period before you on to ensure you and your colleagues that halliburton has cooperated with the investigation into how and why the deepwater horizon incident happened. from the offset, halliburton has made major -- excuse me senior personnel and other employees available to brief members and staff, including members and staff of this committee. as mr. markey may recall, provided a the briefing to him and his colleagues on may 4 last year in the initial stages of the review of the incident. i also participated another

congressional briefings during 2010. our company testified in four separate hearings and produced tens of thousands of pages of documents to this committee. we voluntarily provided to the committee and other committees real-time logging data for sperry drilling for the macondo well so that you and your colleagues that have first-hand views of one of the various data streams available to individuals on the rig and onshore. in addition halliburton has produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents in the multiple investigations that have been underway since last year. in fact said halliburton employees provided testimony to the joint investigative team during its hearings. at present halliburton is the subject of more than 400 class-action lawsuits with many thousands of potential claimants. as you can appreciate with that many lawsuits pending in more potentially in the offing, it will be a very limited in what i

can say today. let me begin with the background of our company. as a global leader in the oilfield services, halliburton has been providing it for a day of services to oil and gas exploration and the production and jury for over 90 years. halliburton is the largest submitting service and material provider in the oil and gas industry. halliburton provides engineering solutions for the life of the well. sperry drilling is a service of halliburton and is a global supplier of reliable, innovative and highly technical drilling and formation evaluation services to the oil and gas industry. and facts very drilling is the second-largest company in all these categories globally. and it is the largest surface data logging company today in the gulf of mexico. halliburton safely conducts thousands of successful well service operations each year. it is committed to continuously improving its performance. week as the company view safety and environmental performance is as critical to its success,

there are core elements of our corporate culture. halliburton has much to offer to help our nation meet its energy security needs. the construction of the deep water well is a complex operation involving the performance of numerous tasks by many parties led by the well owners and representatives who have the ultimate authority for decisions on how went when the various activities are conducted. for the macondo well, halliburton was contracted by the well owner to perform a variety of services on the rig. these included submitting, mud logging, directional drilling, logging while drilling and measurement while drilling. in addition halliburton provided select a real-time drilling and rig data acquisition and transmission services to key personnel, both on board the deepwater horizon and at various onshore locations. subsequent to the blowout,

halliburton worked at the direction of the well owner to provide assistance in the effort to bring the well under control. this effort included intervention support to help secure the damaged well and planning and services associated with drilling the relief well operations. i was grateful to have been able to work with others in our industry on an enormously challenge but ultimately successful effort to bring the well under control. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and i look forward to your questions. >> by thank all three of you for your opening statement. i now ask unanimous consent that our colleague who would does not sit on the committee, but be allowed to be sitting on the dais and that is the gentlelady from houston. without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady can join us. we will start the question period and i will reserve my time and i will reserve my time

but recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. >> thankthank you betcha chairmd thank you gentleman for appearing today. the question is for mr. dempsey of bp. assuming that the trust fund is fully funded at $20 billion, when you add that cost plus all the other cause, what is the total cost to bp run this accident? >> congressman flores i think i should make a couple of points in response to your question. in the 20 billion-dollar trust was established, we were clear that it was neither a floor nor ceiling. it was intended to represent any total or minimum amount of the costs associated with response to the accident. our spending to date related to the accident is more than $20 billion. but, you have obviously estimated some future costs as well, so what would that be when

you added to the 20 billion? is that a number you can share with us today? >> thank you congressman. asked if action there is an important -- i should make. the 20 thing trust was established to do a few specific things including the payment of claims, individual and business and government claims. but it was also intended to provide for funding for some of the natural resource damages caused as that work carries out. it was not intended and has not been used for payment of of the direct response caused, so we have spent on the order of some $13 billion now in the response cost. there has been to this point, a payment of claims, about 5.6, 5.7 billion of that to individuals and businesses and about $1.3 billion in payment of claims to government entities. >> okay so you have spent about 20 billion today. how much of the trust fund have you actually -- would have you actually deposited into the trust fund? >> there has been deposits

congressman into the trust fund that exceed the amount that has been spent which i just described is about, actually somewhat less than the $7 billion. >> lets make this simple. is it going to be 30 billion, 35 billion? this isn't a trick question. i'm just trying to find out, what are you going to spend on this? >> trust funds, cleanup, what are you going to spend? >> congressman i wish i could anticipate or speculate. >> will submit a written question i will ask you to cement that in writing. bp shouldn't have a legal problem in responding to the committee question on that. the point i'm trying to get to is, this is left a mark on bp and i'm assuming that bp has learned from this. and so that takes me to the next question. what are the lessons learned by bp, because of the 30 some odd billion dollars you are going to spend on this? >> it is an important question

congressman. so, one of our biggest priorities in this was evident from, immediately following the accident. we were clear in acknowledging our role. we established within days of the accident our own internal investigation team, who proceeded to do a thorough investigation as to the causes. we committed to make the results of that investigation public. we did that or than a year ago. and on the day that report was published, included 26 recommendations. we immediately accept it the findings and the recommendations of that report. >> okay, good. and then, this is for transocean and for halliburton. in this report, which is the president's commission, one of the allegations that has been made in this is that, because of the fact that transocean and halliburton are worldwide

oilfield contractors, that because of your attachment to this accident, that there is a systemic issue with oilfield operations all over the united states and all over the world. how would you respond to that allegation and this report? let's go with transocean first and try to keep your answers to 30 seconds. >> i cannot comment specifically. from our findings, if there were something systemic you would feel that there would be more these incidents in the industry and there are not. so we did not find anything systemic in the course of our investigation. >> okay, thank you. >> turn on the microphone. >> i share the same commitment that my peers do. we commit every day to make every job is safe as possible and to continuously improve our drilling processes around the world, and we have adopted that philosophy as a management

company. it is core to our culture and we have committed to that on a global basis. >> the bottom line is, you wouldn't agree with any sort of systemic allegation of unsafe operations around the world in the offshore drilling business? is that correct? >> i would again comment, we drill thousands of wells safely each year. very successfully for our customers at transocean. >> i would just reiterate, we did not find anything systemic. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from louisiana. >> i would like to expand a bit on that. mr. ambrose, when you -- you are at transocean right? so you worked for mr. dempsey's company, correct? when you worked for other majors, do you drill -- du jour drilling plant -- mimic bp?

if you were drilling for another mage or would you drill for well the same way that you would for bp? >> an interesting question. every well is different. every operator has their own management system. i cannot say specifically how different or how similar those are. >> so, so, i appreciate each well is different but wouldn't you agree that not only is each well different, but each company drills under different drilling plans? >> i would say each company has their own management system under which they operate. >> and no two are like? >> they may have differences between them. we have never looked at the differences between them so i can't comment on the variation. >> mr. bement do the cement jobs you do for bp, are they identical to the ones you do for other majors?

>> i would agree with mr. ambrose that no two wells are alike, but at the end of the day, we are not the permitting or the operator of the well. we have an important role to successfully bring energy to the u.s. and work very close to execute those processes, so each operator, we follow those instructions. >> again you follow the guidelines set by the operators. and there was a great "wall street journal" article that appeared not long after that talked about the hangers in the way, the liners in the wellbores and how one mage or does it one way and bp does it another. and where i'm going with this is the fact that, if each time you work for a different operator, and each well is different, and

so it means you are having to adjust the application, then how could it be possible for the industry to have a systemic problem? >> not to sound repetitive but we do thousands of wells a year with a lot of different -- >> it is impossible for the industry to have a systemic trouble in based on those facts, wouldn't you agree? don't be like the government witnesses. say yes or no. i mean, your opinion. i've got a lot of respect for the amount of time you have served in the industry. i mean, thinking about those elements, is it impossible for the industry to have a systemic rob lum if each time they drill the well they do it differently, there are different processes and they have to abide by different engineering specifications that are laid out

by the operators. isn't that correct? >> i think it is a combination of a couple of things congressman landry. number one we have her processes and procedures. we improve each and every job that we do. our job is to improve each and every job. we do work for the operator and we apply those processes accordingly, and again, thousands of wells each year for multiple operators with no safety issues and we continue to deliver oil and gas for our country. >> also bring up another good point, that you work for the operator. you are under the control of the operator. the operator is under the control of the permittee, who is bomer but yet you heard today from director bromwich and he believes that he has the authority to extend his reach to govern, to reach into our contracts. my concern is that doing so is

going to muddy the water. this nice pattern of responsibility of how we go in and say okay, we are going to lease a piece of property that operator and the operator says yes we are going to drill safely. they provide the drill plan. they provide the specs. they subit out to you all. bear responsibility is making sure that you follow their plans and the responsibility of ensuring that their plans are followed is boma. so by going out in reaching into -- out to you guys all of a sudden there is going to be this cross finger-pointing. don't you agree? ..

>> i appreciate hearing bp identified 26 recommendations, except from your internal investigation. i want to talk about what's the most significant action or change that your companies have initiated as a result of lessons learned from the incident? >> thank you for the question. i outline several of those in the opening statements, but the key ones were we implemented a wells integrity guideline for our operations for the drill crews on the rig and be clear what needs to be done prior to entering a next part of the operation.

you know, at times, maybe there was some ambiguity about what's required, but we're clear about that now as well as established pressure test guidelines. as a company, there's something we have that we can say, this is something we have to have. we can't go below this. if we don't have it, we can't proceed. those are the two biggest things we learned and implemented quickly. >> thank you. >> yes, sir, i think from the boema report and other investigations there's been several opportunities, best practices that we have reviewed. again, as i shared with you in opening statements, i think we wake up every morning trying to be better, safer, more environmentally friendly in order to produce oil and gas for our great country. the -- so there's a host of things i think we continue to

look at. our haliburton systems, hms, we continue to, in parallel with this effort of continuous improvement, we make that very robust. some little simple things that we've from an industry perspective we've gone with the insight realtime capability. is that going to help the government facilitate the regulatory requirements that may be coming out? you know, we're trying to bring innovation that way. another example is the realtime data log that will now be in our new, latest inside version that will capture realtime digital log of the comments and activities that was a large part of the question during the investigation; right? is what activities were going on during that. little best practices like that, i think, have been a significant improvement. >> thank you.

my colleague, dr. fleming from louisiana in the last panel, looked a lot after -- at permits, and since that time, there appears to be a decrease in permitting. i know job loss in the gulf area, and i have to say that being from pennsylvania and having natural gas there, i have a lot of folks now in louisiana working now in pennsylvania. we appreciate your expertise, but it is unfortunate that they have lost their jobs down there. you mentioned that halibuton is part of the lawsuits, and they have difficulties performing functions because they are being sued. what role does endless litigation play from not allowing your company to get permits. any insights into that?

>> can you repeat the question. >> in terms of impacting the process to where -- the reflection of decrease in permits or the impacting of permits. >> specific to the gulf of mexico, we're ready to go to work. we're quite excited. in fact, you know, as we've seen some return to deep water, we have a number of employees that were deployed to other markets in the world during the moratorium. we're seeing those employees return. we're investing tens of millions of dollars in facility examination in that region as well as new capital support for deep water. in fact, we'll hire 11,000 new people in the u.s. in 2012. >> you know, just curious to all the panelists quickly. what impact have you seen on the

efficiency of leasing since last october? >> from transocean's stand point, that's a process that we're on the outside looking in as the operator really drives that process. we provide information to them. i can just give you my opinion of that from outside looking in. i understand that the process is very erroneous. it seems people are starting to get permits for the deep water operations that we have. they come close sometimes when the rig needs to be going to work, but they are getting them. >> our determination is on getting ready to go back to the work in the deep water of gulf of mexico and making enhancements in our safety processes, procedures, and systems to provide the confidence to the regulator that we would be ready to go. the introduction and adoption of of our voluntary standards that e referred to in the opening comments and dr. bromwich made

testimony earlier today, is an example of what we've done to try to enhance our ability to operate safely and go back to work. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i had to step out of the room, so forgive me if i'm going over ground that's already plowed here, but i think it's important to get this on the record, so mr. dempsey, the interior department yesterday issued seven violations against bp yesterday. does bp plan to appeal? >> congressman hot, as you know, -- congressman hot, as you know, these visions were released

yesterday evening. we'll review those. it's important to note that it's really the beginning of a process, it's not the final determination of violations. we'll absolutely participate in the process to determine where those end up, and we'll continue in that as we have and always would. >> so, does bp agree that it failed to protect health, safety, property, and the environment by failing to perform all operations in a safe and workmanlike manner? >> congressman, what i can say is bp from the very start acknowledged its role in the accident. the notice of the violations are an important indication that the regular -- regular deash regulator will hold people accountable for their accidents like the deepwater horizon, and so while we have acknowledged our role

from the start, we've also been clear that this has been a very, very complicated accident involving multiple parties with a series of complex interconnected causes. it certainly included bp and transocean and haliburton. >> does bp feel they failed to take precautions 20 -- to keep the well under control at all times? >> congressman, what i have to say to that, when we hire contractors to provide services for us in this industry and in this particular case, we do that because they bring specialized expertise, deep experience, expected to perform their jobs seriously to job requirements. >> it's a matter of expectations. that's what you rely on, then? >> congressman, we actually rely on the expertise and experience that they bring. >> all right. so it's the subcontractors that were at fault.

mr. dement, do you expect to appeal? >> as mr. dempsey said, these allegations just came out late yesterday evening. i personally have not seen them. we'll go through that process as i mentioned earlier, and we will reserve the right to appeal. >> mr. ambrose, transocean, i understand, i believe you said a brief while ago that you do intend to appeal, the violations. now, is that correct? >> sir, i personally have not reviewed them. >> in other words, would we have a better hearing right now if, in fact, the chief officers of your companies were here, the people who actually establish the company policy, who actually are in a position to decide what

we're going to do? would you be more comfortable if they were sitting where you're sitting so that they could actually answer these questions? >> that's a rhetorical question. i don't suppose -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would yield to the chairman, of course. >> well, i will say this at the end of this panel. i'll say it right now. if you submit a written request, i'm sure that they will take it to the proper authorities to get the answer to that written request, so i think that option is certainly open to you, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. >> yeah, i'm not trying to play got-you here. this is a very serious matter. many of us maintain that this was not a one of accident. this was an accident waiting to happen, and other such accidents will occur unless the cull --

culture is changed. there's been some effort this morning, i think, to ignore or, i guess you would say correct the finding of these commissions now that spoke of a culture of carelessness, a culture of cutting corners, a culture of not testing, not monitoring, not following through, and if we're going to address that culture, we need companies that face up to it, and not try to shift blame, not try 20 wiggle -- to wiggle out of it. i -- i don't know what else to say. i yield back my time. >> actually, you didn't have any time. i was being kind. i understand the gentlelady from

texas would like to ask a question, so i ask unanimous consent even though she's not a member of the committee, she can ask questions. without objection, she's recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you and mr. holt for your kind indulgence on something that has impacted my region. in the early days of the spill, i spent a lot of time in the louisiana region, and i think my issue, coming from that region, and feeling that we do better when we move forward to recognize that we can cure what may have happened that caused the horrific incident in the first place. i interacted with oyster

fishermen and others, and i believe they were looking to the cure. i want to ask, if i can, mr. dempsey, because i think as i came in, i heard you saying that you had secured findings, and that you were looking them straight in the eye, and we're dealing with those findings. first, let me just ask the general question, do you know how many u.s. employees that bp has in the united states? >> congresswoman, bp has more than 23,000 employees in the united states. >> so you're vested in this country? >> we are, congresswoman. bp has been one of the largest producers of oil and natural gas in the united states for several years, and we believe it's important that we continue to support the american desire for energy security. >> and at the same time as your employees live along the gulf, you, too, want clean air, clean water, but employees to be protected. i don't think -- are you moving

around by saying we want to put our employees in jeopardy? >> absolutely not, congresswoman. we agree completely, it's indeed, our priority. >> can you tell me your response to the findings, how you moving forward to address the findings, and let me not say this in any kind of get-you, but you recognize that 11 people dayed and families are suffering, so are you moving forward to address the findings? i think it's important that there's a sense that we understand that the company understands they have to be actively engaged. i sense you read the findings and are working towards them. can you extend on that in >> i will, congresswoman. we made fundamental substantial changes in our organization in the way that we conduct this work, and in the way that we think about the long term

processes that will apply. for our organization, i mentioned in my opening comments that we've created an organization called safety and operational risk. this is important because that organization provides for several things embedding deep expertise in the line businesses. it provides an opportunity for intervention whenever they see the need to intervene in activity that's underway. we have reorganized the expiration and production business into three separate divisions, and within one, there's a global wells team. there's a place now where we housed the expertise, best practices for drilling in our operations around the world in a common way. we introduced the voluntary standards, congresswoman, which i've also referred to in which director bromwich made mention to. these are providing opportunities for several things including commitment that we'll only use blowout preventers equipped with double blind sheer

ram anywhere where we're operating from a dynamically positioned drilling rig. we'll make changes in third party testing and verification of cement. we'll -- we've made enhancements to the oil spill response activities based on the learning acquiredded through the deepwater horizon accident. >> i got a sense of it. you had findings last night. will you look at them as well in a way that says let's see how we can get moving forwards, fixing what we need to fix? ask you to make a determination of yes or no, but are you in that mode? >> we are, congresswoman, and we will review and consider these findings in that way. >> i appreciate that. mr. anderson, are you in that mode representing trance ocean to fix -- transocean to fix what needs to be fixed? >> yes, ma'am. we take what happened very seriously. >> i think that's an important statement to be on the record. i have to get to the next -- are

you committed to fixing what needs to be fixed? >> yes, ma'am. wake up every morning, drilling faster, better -- >> but fixing what needs to be fixed. >> we improve every day. >> mr. dempsey, do you have impact on the 20 billion? it's moving very slowly. are you able to at least call or find out because it may be separate, but it has jr. name connected, and i say publicly, i don't like the way it's proceeding in terms of reimbursement. it's not you doing it, but do you have the ability or company to ask the question to ask the gentleman that's handling why he's moving so slowly? >> congresswoman, we do have the opportunity to offer our input and our views to mr. feinberg and his team who lead the gccf, the gulf coast claims facility. >> i would appreciate if you do that oversight and determine why do few dollars have gone out at this point. i thank the witnesses and the committee for allowing me to

pull the questions as we look forward to moving on and as you fix the problem and move forward. thank you very much for your testimony. i yield back. >> thank you. i recognize the gentleman of new jersey before i ask my last questions. >> i thank the chair, and this is more by way of a statement than questions, but i would like everyone to hear this, and really despite multiple investigations now that have documented the systemic safety problems that existed before the macondo well blowout, despite evidence of companies cementing the well, and despite the continued assistance by the industry and by others who sit around this here, that all the safety problems have been fixed, and we should hurry up and open up any and all other areas for drilling. what i hear is a continued failure on the part of the

industry to acknowledge its responsibility for the negligence that caused deaths and untold environmental damage. the companies here have told us that they will -- well, probably, i'm reading a little bit into your comments, will fight even the minimal fines, $21 million for bp, and $12 million for transocean and haliburton. bp will fight documents by the government, safety regulators, and continues to refuse to comply with justice department subpoenas. maybe the department should debar bp from future lease sales and refuse to issue drilling permits for any operator who plans to use these companies until the companies step up and show that this was not a one of. this was not just a single occurrence. this was an accident waiting to

happen because of a careless culture, and with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman, and i would just point out i'm sorry, i know that he was elsewhere, but if he heard the exchange between mr. landry in and the panel, you might have got an indication of the issue of the systemic issue that's been floating around, and certainly invite you to go back and look at that transcript. i just have a couple questions, and this is a question to all three of you. are you all currently conducting operations in the gulf today. starting with you, mr. peterson. are you conducting operations in the gulf today? >> yes, congressman, mr. chairman, we are, indeed conducting operations in the gulf of mexico. >> yes, we are, sir. >> yes, sir, and actively recruiting additional personnel for the gulf of mexico. >> there's jobs available? >> absolutely, yes, sir.

>> we'll consider this a call for more jobs then. again, to all three of you, three of your companies received permits or -- in your case, bp approved exploration plans since last april of last year. in other words, have you gotten new operations in the gulf since last april, since april of last year? >> mr. chairman, for exploratory drilling, we have not yet received approved permits. we have one pending app placation for -- application for a revised exploratory plan that was summited. they closed the public comment period on object 2, and now it's in the 30-day review period. >> have you gotten works since april of last year? >> mr. hastings, yes, sir, on

the outside looking in with our customers, but we're seeing an increase in activity as we talk about it. >> okay. >> yes, sir, we're seeing permits for our customers, yeah. >> okay. finally, and this was brought up when transocean's president, mr. newman, and mr. mckay were here a year ago. my district is not on the coast, but right across from where i live is the most contaminated nuclear site in the country, and the contractors there allow the workers whenever they see something wrong, the work can stop immediately. is that true with all three of your companies as a matter of company policy whether somebody tells you to or not? is that a matter of company policy. starting with you, mr. peterson. >> mr. chairman, it is, indeed,

a policy and a practice in our operations around the world that when we see an unsafe act, any and all of us have the obligation to stop work. >> okay. mr. ambrose? >> yes, sir, it is. we have a policy for time out for safety. it's implemented worldwide in the policies and procedures. it's not a right. it's an obligation. you have to do it. when you look at this particular incident, they shut the operation down because they saw an anomaly. >> yes, sir, stop work is part of the system and part of our continuous improvement process. it is embedded within the culture of that process. >> okay. i just think that's worth the emphasizing because there's been a lot of discussion about this and what has happened. clearly, when 11 people die, and you have the environmental taj that happen --

environmental damage that happened in the gulf, it's serious, but i just think that point needs to be made. once again, seeing no other members on the table, i'll adjourn the meeting, but i want to thank you all for being here and the first panel for being here. if there's follow-up questions to be september -- sent to you, i think mr. holt had one, that you respond in a timely manner and make it available to everybody on the committee, and with that, the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> committee stands recessed. [inaudible conversations]

>> members of the british house of commons voted thursday to ban the use of hand-held devices like smart phones and tablets during dates and committee meetings. sending tweets was argued as distracting and could be viewed negatively by the public. supporters say it helps them stay connected and in touch with their staff during long periods of debate.

it allows members to read speeches and questions from their devices, however, laptops still banned from the chamber. here's a look at yesterday's debate. >> we now come to main business. it is the business on hand-held devices, and can i say, mr. speaker, as i accepted the amendment, the first four motions together, select amendments, expenditure statements on amendments unwritten parliamentary questions. objection? mr. gregg knight to move. >> thank you, mr. deputy speaker. i beg to move the first motion on the order of paper standing in my name and the name of some of my honorable friends and colleagues. can i start by thanking the back bench business committee for providing time this afternoon for these debates. i have to say i don't think it should be their responsibility

to provide this time. these are house matters relating to procedure of the house, and i think the government in future should provide time for debates such as this. all of the motions before us in my name today arrive out of reports from the procedure committee and for the benefit of members, i can say house of commons papers 800, 889, and 1104 are relevant. i'd like also to thank members of the procedure committee for their hard work, which goes largely unnoticed. we do frequently disagree, but i believe that is part of our strength that we have a committee comprised of a wide range of members in all parts of the house. i'd like to start by referring to the first motion on hand-held electronic devices in the chamber. the house of commons last revised its rules on the use of

electronic hand held devices in the chamber, and in committee in october 2007, and, of course, since that time, the use of technology and the development of smaller and less obtrusive devices have developed rapidly, as has new software, so i do think that there is a need to look at our rules again. i remember when i first purchased a mobile phone, i think i was one of the first people in the country to do so, i had to carry it with a shoulder strap, and the battery was larger than a large bound volume of -- it was a device weighing about eight pounds, and it would be totally impractical to bring that device into this chamber, and yet, we now see devices which have the power of computers capable of being held in the palm of the hand, so i think it's right that we look again at our rules in this regard, and i hope the house

will agree to the resolution which is currently before us, namely that hand-held devices, not laptops, may be used in the chamber provided they are silent and used in a way which does not impair decorum, that members making speeches in the chamber or committee may refer to devices in place of paper speaking notes and let electronic devices, like laptops may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees. ..

which led to a 2007 resolution. it was against this background that mr.'s beaker and administration committee asked the procedural committee, whether it would look into the matter to see what the self-rule should be changed. it mcwethy agreed to consider the matter further. what happens another part of the world we were particularly impressed with the new and simple rule that is being introduced in the united states of america. they are, the u.s. house of representatives had previously found the use of mobile phones and computers on the floor of the house. in the fifth of january this year, the new congress agreed to a revised rule, which states that a person on the floor of the house may not use a mobile

electronic device that impairs the koran. it seems to us this is straightforward and simple and it is designed to guess discretion to the speaker or whoever else is in the chair to decide what sort of technology can be used by referring to how the devices use, rather than what it is used for or what type of device it is as was the case in the past. yes, of course. >> wonder is not point you to keep talking about us. the city committee was split on this number and the formatters having and the amendment to the motion today. >> the preceding committee report upon which this debate was passed by a majority of members voting on that report. i am happy to acknowledge straight away that my honorable friend has been an opponent from

the beginning and he voted against in committee. i accept that this is a matter of fine judgment. i don't think it's one of those issues where one can clearly say that the mainstream view here is right in any other view is from. i do think it's a matter of fine judgment and i hope during my remarks to convince the house that on balance, the majority view of the committee is the one which the house should follow. i mean, i accept there is a respect the argument that electronic devices should not be used at all in the chamber wearing committees. it could be said that those members present at any time should be attending to the debate in hand, but not at their tiki and other committees and use of electronic devices even silently could distract others. but their arguments the other way. and i actually think that the

main argument, but not all the arguments in favor of committing the use of electronic devices are mainly pragmatic yet the modernization committee, which i referred to earlier recognize the selection of the restriction handheld devices at least as far as females are concerned because the possibility that a multitasking in the chamber might increase the number of members present in any one debate. in a report specifically aimed at revitalizing the chamber, the modernization committee argued members make you more willing to spend time in the chamber listening to debates are waiting to be called if they were able to do other work at the same time. either dealing with correspondence or perhaps even using a handheld computer or laptop to do with the mouse. >> thank you to my friend for

giving way. my takes up a few in the event who are notoriously good at multitasking is the female members who can listen to debate and even think about what they're going to feed their children. >> i hope sun male members also can multitask. i'm grateful to her for her support. >> i am grateful to bridled member for giving way. in his consideration of refreshing and enlightening the chamber, does the committee also consider making sure that the chamber has wireless reception so that we can actually, you know, communicate more quickly using electronic devices? >> i believe it is better to take one step at a time and study something they may return to subject to the conclusion of the house today.

yes, thank you. >> i think my rental friend for giving way. >> order. i think it's a little bit discourteous when they started making clear to allow a little time and listening before we jump in. chuichu take it? >> you were facing that direction and i was not. if that is your view, i'm happy to give way to someone else. >> e. slain at a very clear case. we accept one of the other functions of handheld devices in the chamber is to let the public know what's happening. procedure is also in a way clear for the casual observer. twitter for example will let them actually know what's going on. >> i think there's certainly a strong argument than anything we do increases public interest in this chamber and in our committees is something that we should not rule out of order.

and so i agree with what he has to say. i also think the consistency, written notes as well as books, newspapers, letters and research papers may not be used as an inmate number in a speech. there's a difference in i.q. and allowing a member to consult his or her speaking notes are necessary documents, either in hard copy or enamel at tronic format on an electronic device. indeed, there's more and more material published in electronic form only may soon be the only way that some documents can be consulted, particularly at the house of commons commission pursue their quest for further savings and decree that some of her publications, which currently we can enjoy paper should be available in electronic form only. as i said, i give way.

>> i inadvertently became the first member to use an ipaq for a speech in the chamber a few months ago, mainly because i thought we were told we now code, which i actually found that i was under the last to be called in that debate. perhaps the circumstances but the previous speech that daytime start to delivering from the fact i could listen to what other people were saying unamended speeches that went along and respond to it i think meant that the speech was far more of a response to the debate, rather than just me coming along to say my five or 10 minutes worth. >> that's a very good point. what is the difference between the written word on a piece of paper from the nose may contemporaneously with the debate or referring to the past tablet with the same process has been followed by the chronically. >> will you accept that some of

us has a few that they express an amendment by the honorable gentleman would be more appropriate as a way to proceed? it looks pretty bad as people spend all their time in debate looking at papers and other things that has nothing to do with it. i think it looks even less connect with the debate of people spend all their time playing around with bits of electronic machinery. and if we are here, we should be here taking part in the debate and the administration of our life should have been outside of here, not in here. >> i hear what the honorable gentleman has to say. fma, i will return to this point when i address the terms that the amendment shortly. yes. >> does the honorable men agreed that it's also wrong that people in this chamber decide to have a little snooze clicks on that

basis in the main motion that says we should behave with the corn. isn't that what we should use it to be available? >> to me that if the whole dataset the argument didn't seem to put forward today. mainly in whatever we do we should behave with deploring. there is no duty on any of us to listen to the person who has the floor. the duty on us is to behave with the corn and not to be out of order. and that's why think it's quite appropriate to allow these devices. in many instances, waiting for a later debate to start and they are not there to participate in the debate that is currently underway. what is wrong with saying those numbers provided they do it discreetly should be able to check to see if they have any messages or e-mails or other documents they wish to review? >> i think the honorable

gentleman for giving way. as a lowly member of animal life, i have spent six hours waiting to be called because i will be called right to the end. and in those six hours can be much more equipped full and the honorable gentleman suggested that i can occasionally do a little bit of work while i'm waiting to be called because of my very known position in the ranking of this house. >> he's done throughout the number of times he spoke. [laughter] >> welcome back or what might my honorable friend said, but it's never forcing before his lowly. the whole issue is what a fine judgment as i've said. i personally have reservations about facing the rules in this regard upon what it dvds are permissible or forgiven.

firstly, in reference -- the reference in our current rules to checking e-mails and nothing else shows how quickly the range of applications on handheld devices could outstrip any attempt to define a what is acceptable. secondly, it is difficult if not impossible to increase activity on electronic device in a proportionate way. do we really want the speaker to have to weather a member had been using a device for a proper purpose following a complaint from another member. and i think also it is illogical to prevent members from using the let tronic devices in the way they could use paper notes and documents for their speaking notes for this speech research purposes. why should we prevent members from checking facts on the internet or consulting material by way of research in the course of proceeding in the chamber.

>> bright hair and the point, what i was taught as a new member of parliament, nevermind whether my facts are actual, to say them anyway. and i think this house -- i have never followed that advice. however, one of the advantages of having an ingeniously able to send a message to the chief counsel to deal with the damning statistics being provided by the benches of literacy is incredibly helpful for us and doing our job of holding the government to the country being a good elementary in. >> my honorable friend is absolutely right. and of course ministers have been the facility for years, paper notes have regularly been passed from officials to ministers during debate. so that ministers can refresh

themselves to the accuracy of points being made. why should this be denied to the rest of us who could obtain such information electronically? the procedural committee therefore concluded by maturity that members should be allowed to use electronic handheld devices for any purpose when in the chamber while not speaking. and that recurred on the use of hand-held electronic devices while speaking in the debate should be ended. i understand even how they are now willing to accept knows this speech is electronically rather than asking the honorable members for a hard copy printout of their speech. we all however hope that such devices is allowed to be used will be used with discretion and with due regard tuticorin. now i turn to the amendment, which i suspect my honorable friend in north wiltshire will seek to know shortly. this would allow hand-held

electronic devices to be used in the chamber only to receive and send urgent messages as a substitute for papers speaking notes and to refer to documents in debate. so there would be no way to search for information, no checking of e-mails while one is sitting in the chamber. however -- >> perhaps the amendment should be no searching. of course there should be. the amendment is the device could be used for any purpose connect to, but for another purpose than the debate. so of course they can be used on the wording of the amendment. >> well, the amendment also removes a mention of the use of devices and committee, which i think is extremely unfortunate because certain committees already circulate nonconfidential papers

electronically and there's currently i understand the pilot to test the use of electronic devices for the provision of some housekeepers come of which is being carried out by the administration committee. and yet, if my honorable friend the amendment is passed, whether in electronic device could be used in any committee will be entirely a matter for the chairman of that committee to determine. there is no guarantee of consistency and committee years provided by my honorable friend the amendment. >> may be the amendment is better, but of course in this chamber was to be changed in the way i described, of course i acknowledge the amendments, but that's included in the amendment. >> i have a friend is now telling the house what he wished his amendment would do rather than what it does do.

i do not recommend anyone to go for such an amendment. it actually removes. he takes any reference to committee use of electronic bases at all. members on this point should have said can see in that they can and cannot do. imagine the case of someone coming along to a committee was almost on electronic bias in the chairman of the committee saying in a committee we don't have the use of these devices. it would be the member high and dry. i give way. >> of where it should the honorable gentleman does that there's consistency between practice and the changer and in committees, then the rule that has allowed gentlemen to remove their jackets and committee, that is not of course allowed in the chamber where presumably last. >> he makes a valid point. yes. >> that was clearly amendment being drafted. the laptops would be currently people have to sit in the

corridor to use laptops if the amendment passes. they'll have to stay in the corridor and will not be allowed in the committee room. but my honorable friend agree with? >> i do indeed. against the amendment for consistency, i think members are able to send messages between each other by paper, they should be allowed to do so by electronic devices and in some cases that may be less disruptive if a member of the committee wishes to pass a message to a member on the other side of the committee to use the electronic device he doesn't need to leave his chair, whereas to do it by paper message the member would have to move to the other side of the committee. >> if i could just finish my arguments against the amendment. enforcement of the rules to be very difficult for the chair to determine during proceedings whether member was using electronic device to send or receive an urgent message. who is to determine the messages that you are urgent? surely that's a matter for this

urban enough for the chair. the chair would therefore be it to run what is or is not an urgent message? it's from this very point. >> you challenge of understanding the message is to know whether it's urgent before they need to. >> you have to view your messages before ready out there or dance or not. i feel i'm still halfway through my description of why the should not support the amendments. i should give way to my rental friend. >> i would just like to clarify because it has concern standing for a rather long time. chirrup ways and means allows the members of the chairman, which i happen to be one from a very great deal of leeway in determining how a ruler committees in the interest of good order and progress of business. and let me assure that in any committee time-sharing, members

surrender whether they're allowed to use electronic devices or bring tea or coffee in the room. they are not. what a dad to take jackets off, they are. i've never had a problem with any member being an decision whatsoever. >> i'm grateful to the honorable old friend that he therefore underlines my case with the need for the motion to be passed on amended because he's made it quite clear in his committee whatever view we take in the house in committees or exams, he would not to use electronic bases. if you wish is to see devices, i reject the amendment and the motion undefended. and i do think the point about participation is one that we can't ignore, too. there is an argument that members are more likely to attend debates if they're able to do other work while they are waiting to be called. and that is why i believe we should allow the use and

committee and on the floor of the house. can i now turn, mr. speaker, mr. deputy speaker as we can debate these to the other remaining motions, which are on the word today. the remaining motions contain three sets of recommendations, which shared a common aim of improving the effect of massive parliamentary scrutiny. the procedure committee was asked to consider either liaison committee whether select committees are able to table and there are bright amendments to bills and motions on the floor of the house. so we agreed to look at it than we think there is a case for so doing subject to certain safeguards. any amendment as a select committee amendment we believe should be agreed unanimously at the current meeting of the

committee and that notice should be given to all members of that committee that such amendments will be composed for consideration of a particular forthcoming meeting. we have also suggested the subject to the established conventions of selection for debate and decision, the speaker at the chairman of ways and means might look favorably on the select committee seeking a separate division on its amendments were businesses programmed. >> on behalf of the liaison committee, we are grateful for the commissioners have not only accepted the proposal which came from us and originate in the joint committee on human rights, but has refined the ability to helpful safeguards. as the non-as astonished as i am that the payroll votes are prevented? >> well, i hope this debate is progressing. the government may have a change of heart, but i rather share his feeling that that may not come

about. we also recommended we cannot a further experiment while members of an opposition spokesman are encouraged to table explanatory or statements on amendments to bills, and the government used this facility to provide explanatory statements for the origin of amendments which are proposed on report. and thirdly, the committee recognizes that what is written in parliamentary questions are a vital part of scrutiny. they also impose significant costs on the purpose. and although we felt it would be wrong to consider imposing restrictions on the current ability of amendments tabled questions in person, we do think we should have a trial for a period of three months of applying a restriction for written questions submitted daily electronically. we also recommended that

members -- we also recommended to assist members of the government should consider all answers to the members concerned by e-mail at the same time as the answer is delivered to the house. and this is vitally important. i do case rizzoli myself where i asked the question and the answer that the members know is delivered by a person who literally walks around the building and takes the other into the press gallery puts it on the noticeboard of the member. and in my case, i was the last part of this journey. the house was collapsing and i had a phone call from a journalist who wanted to know what made you wish waste the answer you seek to make why shouldn't i wish my office had not received and i'm checking with the board is still had not reached the board. and so i do think it is not

acceptable for members to be the last in the? to receive questions. and that is why we feel were members always receive an electronic reply immediately the answer is available. i give way. >> i would like to warn the committee on approval of the expanded statement. i just want to presence lately on this restriction of written questions, but it seems to go against the argument in terms of consistency and electronic devices. surely whether to question his table via the internet, it should be treated in the same way. while we need to improve the system, i can understand why electronic questions need to be a special case and they have a quota, but other questions not. >> fna, i'll come back to that point in a moment because i want to completely deal with the question of select committee

minutes first, but i will return to the honorable ladies point if she's not satisfy the invite her to intervene again. the procedure committee as they said was asked by the liaison committee to look at the question of the table in this time for select committees to table an amendment. as a current case is that amendments agreed by select committee may be tailored only in the names of individual members, which makes it difficult to distinguish committee amendments from those table but this the members of the committee had enough individuals. so after consulting interested parties come in the procedural committee published a report recommending the product this be changed to allow committees to table amendments to bills and motions in the name of the chair, but which would be followed by attack line on behalf of the particular select committee. the advantages are clear with the of the house and individual

members in enabling anyone reading the amendment paper he did a particular amendment originated with the select committee. it is confident towards the effectiveness of select committees. we recognize that there are potential disadvantages for individual members of a select committee might disagree with the proposed amendment. either at the time of its adoption by the committee are afterwards. and to counsel it, the procedure committee recommended stringent safeguards be built into the process by which committees could agree at that moment, which the special status of select committee amendments. we suggested that such an amendment is to be formally agreed with activation by a point meeting at the commute he. this is a more rigorous requirement and is the case for select committee reports themselves, which can actually be agreed by a simple majority.

the committee rejected the idea of the select committee member should be guaranteed debate because of the constraints of programming. but we did support the adoption of the convention that the chair should grant a division where one without. unfortunately, as the chairman of the liaison committee has said, the government indicated it was supposed to this innovation. and i understand it continues to be opposed to such a modest sensible move today. and djs in the patronage secretary buzzing around the house rather like a wasp on this particular matter. so i suggest there well could be -- there well could be a payroll by the government against this particular suggestion from the liaison committee. [inaudible] [laughter] >> the government's objection to the proposal has been that would be wrong for an amendment to the mark is having a select

committee were some committee members might be in disagreement and we try to meet this difficulty by recommended stringent conditions which would have to be met before select committee man that could be tabled as such. these now include additional safeguards that notice must be given before the committee can agree the amendment. the government said it was still possible under this new arrangement for any two members of an 11 member committee to improve an amendment since the quorum is only three in the chair has a casting vote. this is of course technically correct. i would suggest that the requirement for notice makes it most unlikely indeed in this impossible that this could ever happen against the wishes of the majority of active members of the committee. >> what to respect, i don't think he is correct in what he said nor is the government. the chair of the committee only has a vote when there is an equality voices.

>> he has a point from which makes the argument even stronger in the government even weaker. i am grateful to the honorable gentleman for his intervention. our proposal is merely intended to enhance visibility for committee issues. we've acted with diminishing individual members in voting for or against amendments on the floor. this is not an issue on our agenda. the liaison committee asked tuxtla said. we've done so in the second clue should have. i therefore hope even at this late hour the government will reflect on their opposition, which i feel is misplaced, though we have given our view on whether this proposal precedes any further is now a matter for the whole house. i see the honorable lady in her place and i know she was one of the members present, supporting the idea of statements, which is the subject of one of the other

motion from the paper today. the house has conducted a series of experiments and the procedure committee assessed these, but we decided that the overall effect was inconclusive, but it was put to rest that perhaps carrying out further experiment in a new parliament, i.e. this parliament, would be worthwhile and also worthwhile to pursue this experiment on report stage. so that is what we have decided to recommend to the house and we are pleased to note a debate in westminster hall on the third of february, which the honorable lady attended, there was complete consensus who spoke it would be for the benefit not just of members, but for those outside the house who happen to have an accompanying explanation of what a particular amendment or new clauses designed to do.

as rather more hopeful here because attending the debate also as the deputy leader of the house and in a situation he offered government support for this measure and he said in a quote cover re: explanations for amendments, we have the experimented committee and am certainly happy as far as the governments are concerned for that experiment to proceed. her house where to look adding such explanations on the report to. i halfway agree with him and i'm glad on this issue we are one. and i hope you will confirm today that he feels it is now appropriate in this fashion in the next for us to try out these excellent attorney notes and games and they will then be a matter to the house that you cause to decide whether the facility is to be made permanent. on the question of having a three-month trial quote a font tables on questions to vote

electronically. the concern here arose from evidence we had informally in maine, where the table office found that when questioning the intended scope of some questions received electronically and members names, some members appear to know nothing at all about the particular questions. it indicated some surprise when the question was better in their name. and there is a view which the committee has taken that it may well be in some cases research assistants using the electronic procedure to table questions without the express authority of those they work for. and of course, questions are proceeding in parliament. the question should not be submitted without the express an explicit authority of a member of parliament. and as the electronics mission

is a method where it could be undertaken without the member's knowledge, we decided in this area only to limit the number 25 for a period of three months to see what the effect would be. we are not recommending any restriction on the amount of questions a number can take into the table office personally. so it's a modest experiment, which we hope will lead to the situation arising in the future where in all cases the men are and has named a question is submitted is fully aware that question is being submitted in his or her name. mr. speaker -- >> i think the gentlemen for being generous. the alternative possibility would be to encourage electronic submissions to the procedure were once has received received is automatically sent out by e-mail for any sort of rogue researcher. its very quickly with a full

list. >> that is an alternative possibility, but we actually considered in the first instance to give a short three-month trial and might actually lead to small drop in the number of questions for the member deems that it's not worth asking him that in turn may lead to some better and quicker answers coming from government compartment department that they have a slightly smaller postbag to deal with. we thought it was worth an experiment. their other questions that can look at and indeed it is a suggestion of an experiment, i'm quite happy to reflect on what the red old members said should it proceed today. >> my writer friend is being gentle and understanding. there is a potential that by being bullies and others. researchers and other associated parties of people relating to

members and correctly brought under control. >> my red old friend, this is a modest way of actually putting a check on the number of written questions going in and making sure that the member in each case is fully aware of what is being tailored in his surname. >> mr. deputy speaker, i played my commission before the house. i've seen they are all balanced, fair, proportionate and likely to assist members in the duties. unamended. >> there's also a lot to do is bring in the 10 minute rule for 10 minutes speakers. can i ask members if you would try to not use the maximum time and took on interventions, the next debate is oversubscribed and i know this is important.

people outside were quite understand, but more help devices will be due on high-speed rail. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate than we thought the report in the main motion strongly against the amendment. the main motion seeks to allow members to use handheld device is in a way that is not impaired the koran. we are all adults are mindful of how we are viewed in the eyes of the public and the importance of being respectful to each other. it is right that we use our discretion with a habit. it's also current laptop should be banned. they can steal people's faces and make a noise. it is right that any smart member has it when it's put on fat mode is always regrettable and embarrassing with a colleague's phone servings of the chamber. it remembers to receive urgent messages.

according to an e-mail received, the intention of the term urgent messages is to ban among others names to a team from the chamber. twitter started five years ago and now over a hundred million active users. there are more than 300 mps from this house used to attend. twitter allows us cenobite face 140-carat nugget to talk to people outside of this place. and while it is not to replace the traditional forms of medication, it is a very useful way to connect with the community we were elected to represent. one of the advantages of twitter is that we have to convince your message into 140 characters to communicate with the outside world. should you agree that we could learn from that and perhaps try and combat our own contributions in this place to 160-carat or is? >> i think the honorable member for making nonintervention the

point has been made by any people engaged in a discussion about what we should or should not continue using in the chamber. all reflect those contributions. many of us have a function where they are listed on our website for people to read, particularly those two don't have access to the main twitter website. some of us have been busted for using twitter silly to state what they are doing. the others use it to engage in debate. a conversation on topic can unfold on twitter with a hash tag and i thought that the hash tag to initiate date on online discussion identify what the public thought about preteen in the chamber has very specific to say a few things in this place, not outside of the plates. it's not that the amendments had been tabled at all. after which no wonder people think politicians are out to perch. there were so many trees suffering regions can i can't

read them all, but i have taken the view under a number of teams. some see as a means to the engagement. sbc said surely anything in the public in the democratic process is a good thing and its consortium said parliaments are these be cut off in staffing. others shared my twitter to them is important to understand what's actually going on. mikey and hate committed part of it can be such an alien place. and be treating out what is happening. >> this is slightly self-selecting commotions after twitter notley twittering. >> i think the member for his intervention and author responses from people who didn't think we should continue selection here.

and citizens deserve transparency. as daisy templeman said that the censorship now. i'll give way. >> with the honorable lady believe me that treating with a sustained form on the accountable to their constituents and inexplicable step back in time. 130-acre tears. >> i think the honorable member for that very sustained and pithy intervention. and i wholeheartedly agree with everything she has just said. all too often we are accused of being inward facing. the public says we are out of touch, and accessible. twitter allows us to make politics relevant and active individuals, et cetera. >> i'm not sure if she was one of the mps that was in the chamber when we were discussing

or were then going to discuss what the parliament would be allowed to sit here in a friday for the second year running. it was a mistake that should be allowed to do so. we cannot escape whether they'll be allowed to do so. the fact that we could explain to them what on earth it was they were watching on bbc parliament channel and young people who wanted to know what we were talking about. i think we could better use twitter from the chamber. i think they really -- >> yeah, yeah, yeah. >> i think my honorable friend and i wholeheartedly agree with everything she said. as a good example of how i think it is quite embarrassing the prospect of us not using the parliament who sit here for arduous amount of hours so we came to a decision. effectively communicate in the public with an opportunity to come to this place is always a

fantastic use of twitter. twitter also enables us to make an offer, an immediate reaction today to say no when we are going to speak as i've done just before i'm talking now. formal constituents are facing. i'll give way. >> i had the great honor i believe of all content to be the first to join twitter. i also had a number of comments. and i've had a number of instances as well. a number of people say they become interested in politics as a result of twitter from a bout the honorable lady and others, the people actively tune into debates because they know what is happening because they can understand quickly what is being debated. the audience on tv goes out because of twitter. another point being made to me is that -- people have no other way to follow the debate in the chamber as it happens.

>> his intervention makes two points camacho going to elaborate on a just a moment. i believe that twitter allows her constituents to better hold onto account, particularly reasons i outline. we've had a number of members talking about privacy, the public wants to know what's going on, they should watch it on television. but as they understand that, they can't watch on tv. not everyone has access to a television or computer of the internet tv. or they may have internet access was twitter on their mobile phones. the public would actually choose to watch the parliament channel. the honorable members earlier in his intervention was worried about what people might think watching us on television. the broadcast audience research board, the average weekly viewing per person a bbc parliament is just one minute. i think it's going to get to another channel. she went on to say tweeting from

the chamber helps voters gauge mood and tone. i'll give way. >> the issue where many evidence by those mps who don't tweet is constituents are less satisfied with those who do so. >> i'm not aware of any evidence that constituents are less happy with mps if they don't speak. all of that out of my previous contribution is that twitter enables us to reach out for a wide audience than it should be a replacement for traditional forms of communication, but younger members who go to our website what you see some update that twitter provides that opportunity. and as i said before, it also enables people to understand and engage the mood and tone from within this place, which they could necessarily pick up from

watching the television. one thing i hadn't either until i can get this debate on twitter and has this been mentioned by the honorable member or a moment ago was a positive benefit for hearing impairment. bbc parliament channel is not subject to the bbc 100% subtitle commitment. and pledges just a hundred hours of subtitle content a year. regencies that twitter is one really useful way for people to get involved in political discussion and debate. otherwise some objection that we couldn't concentrate and a tweet. i argue we can't direct equivalent of sending a text message, which takes seconds. if the honorable member says i believe both women and men are able to multitask. >> kents surgeons treat, please been a breeze, jurors in the courtroom, teachers and

classroom? ayre to another scenarios the audience for each of those individuals committed teacher procedure is right in front of them. but we are adaptable to a constituents for a very long ways. don't get me wrong, i'm not advocating content to be gained or treating what we are talking. 1969 use common sense. selective users very good account engaging with the lack trade, et cetera. there are just two countries in europe who banned tweet. i don't think we should join them. the balance of the chamber would be unconstitutional. i'm not sure i agree, but i do believe as he says that it would be anti-democratic progressive enemies into the public. >> server alan hays. >> mr. deputy speaker, i'm grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. i'm not speaking to agree to the

committee and i am grateful for that, but the rate evidence permitted on behalf of the committee, which was unanimous has been printed with the report today. but what i say now will be in light of the procedure committee's report and its recommendations. i realize that what i say that the leading candidate for this dinosaur of the year award, so i'm conscious of that. i just want to say i think we should appreciate the extraordinary reputation, which this has had across the world. we are admired. we should be humble by the fact that whatever this parliament, the government salary and decided the institution is respect it enormously. and people come from all over to see how we proceed as a

legislator. and it's because i think we get on our own feet, use their own weight, that it produces a quality of debate, which has in fact given all british parliamentarians have fairly high reputation across the world. i think one must just remember that because if we get into a situation where it appears we are being prompted from outside, which is a perfect possibility when producers handheld devices in this house, then i think i reputation will decline. and i hate to say i'm not targeting the members particularly, but i do believe handheld devices will accentuate the tendency to read speeches because the reading of speeches, which is discouraged by the words does have a dampening effect on debate.

she read a very gracious contribution. i rarely make the point in general. sitting in the chair of the husk i had to listen to a contribution from an article member who is no longer here. and i thought there was a certain ring about it. and to discover that it was the submission of that honorable member to a select committee, which was being read out before the house and i was able to follow it word for word. so i think there're certain dangers and going down that particular road. so what seems -- why well, normally yes. >> would you agree to me that many contributions that are made nissan off in an awful archer seems in some of the more rambling contributions from other people? >> the contributions could very and i'm certainly not going to make any claims for what i said

as the honorable lady knows, i've had 13 years without prior as the speaking in this house. so i'm a bit of a newcomer now myself. so quality does vary. i accept that very much indeed. but i sometimes wonder when we talk about using other tronic tablet, for example, what happens if the power goes off, someone could be caught in a theory difficult situation. and it is ironic, is it not that we are discussing this at a time where the most well-known devices held by many members is in fact in trouble in achieving purposes come with some members have put stolen today? >> i just want the house to recognize -- what is modernity i guess, but it is transformation that can be no doubt that it is transformational and that doesn't necessarily fit with the

style of debate that we have had in this house over the years. twice when i had the privilege of sitting in the chair, i had to restrain honorable members from making telephone calls from the chamber simply because the devices they are. no one is suggesting the telephone calls can be made, but the fact the devices they are can be used for that purpose does penetrate the two infringement. i noticed also that the witch on duty on the government of opposition were often totally distracted by using their device and were not actually keeping pace with business and i created this function with the chair. and that was also one of the things that they are very compelling, and these devices when you've got them in your hand. it's not what they might do as has been recommended. it's what they can be used for.

and they think it's like a television screen and some of these houses when you go in. your eyes tend to be drawn to it. i think what the device in your hand county could easily just at the press of a bad move to some team which has your interest. people know how good it would be simply to sort it see what's happening at this particular time. as the voter is lacking that, it would be able to let back what i'm interested in what is going on before looking down again that what was happening. the chair does not know for all the qualified recommendation before the house and modification by my hot girlfriend fran north wilshire. the chair has no means of what is actually happening when these devices are in use. so when we admit them, if we do come with got to recognize they can be used for a whole variety of purposes, which the chair would find very difficult to

distinguish. it's extending the length of my speech and i don't want to do that bearing in mind the amount of time that is left. i apologize. i refers to him. so i think the idea is also that the whole purpose of having the meeting this so that members can get on with other things. multitask as the honorable friend would advise. but quite honestly, the chair has strayed over the years to be accommodating to colleagues and not make events it through the whole of the debate. the convention is you are there for evening speeches and you're there to listen to the speech immediately before or after the one that you make yourself. the chair sometimes does give guiding spirit in mind that we are all of heavy pressure to do so many other things these days. so i don't think it is quite such a good excuse that one is here for six hours in there for one must get on with one's work.

and i am aware and i'm still continuing, but the public having complained about the fact that it has to show up empty, where are they? what are they doing? one of my constituents said to me at one point, any member who was placed in the chamber for the whole of the debate should be deselect it. i mean commentaries that level of misconception outside of the house. now the public is starting to notice as they look around the chamber that people are in fact doing something in the one or two ago. i saw several parties heads down. it's not whether they are able to multitask, not that they can't listen to what is being read. it's what the public thinks this what they are doing and they looked distracted from what is going on. so that is a reputational point, which the house has to consider. so i would merely say that i suspect the house is going to bow to the inevitable but this

is progress. but i think we should just be aware of the direction in which we may be headed. and the care to revive debates will be likely to offer. the administration committee and its report suggested that we should try this out much more in committee first. and that is what i still believe. i still believe that when i was the chairman of ways and means of the panel we were rather opposed to the use of laptops. i think the tablet is a different thing. it is used effectively to do with notes on causes and all matters related and i would encourage that possibility. this is why the administration committee is trying out how to operate in a paper this manner. and i think that is why. so it would in my mind has been better balance to say let's see how this works in committee before we consider an essential

difference between the working committee and the work in the house. to my mind, i right honorable friend for whom i have great respect for commanding a balanced approach on this matter of the handheld devices. i think what the administration said in what i'm trained to endorse now with the a better balance still. >> thank you pray much, mr. deputy speaker. i warmly welcome this debate and congratulate the member for east yorkshire on his members report. as a much support to procedural committee recommendations are committee members and indeed of course on the handheld device is, but whatever they could just concentrate my remarks on the motion relating to statements to amendments. now that might sound like a very chair i technical issue, a very abstract issue, but i believe it actually goes to the heart of exposing something that is very rest them about the way display

words. one of the thing that struck me as particularly shocking when i first arrived here last year and first vote on legislation was that due to lack of time, some government amendments go through a broad stage on the knife with neither did they nor explanation. that effectively means the legislation is going through with the scrutiny whatsoever. moreover deeply scandalous mini in peace because they have no idea what they are voting on when they file through the lobbies. at the excellent work of the procedural committee is try to address this problem with a simple solution is explanatory statements are under the matter i've raised in a case of parliamentary reform. following to report i was able to scare a lively and well attended business-to-business westminster on the third of february. during that debate i was really heartened at the level of cross party support for the idea of explanatory debate on the house. and i think that support was there because the public would be rightly outraged or it widely

known that legislation is going undefeated and that many mps are simply not in a position to know what they are voting on. [inaudible] >> the sheer volume of legislation that goes through this this place, the truth is that none of us can be familiar with the legislation which goes through. surely she could be a little bit generous to the rest of us. >> the honorable member absolutely undermines exactly what i'm saying. i'm not blaming members for being in a position that they cannot know the minute details of any particular member will do and that is what makes having an explanatory statement so important. in other words, a limited amount of tax that would explain very clearly what a particular amendment would seek to achieve. if honorable members had that information they would be in a much better position to be able to exercise their vote in a judicious way on behalf of their constituents it would be able to put their hand on their heart and say yes we do know what we are votin