was who's fault is it quiet and not blaming members. i'm blaming the way we were. given the way our system is set up, i think it is indeed understandable, although frankly not acceptable that many mps to have to do land the wits without really knowing what the amendment they are voting on actually does. and i've seen members, honorable members but really been physically propelled in support of government legislation, even as they are trying to find out the significance of what they are voting on. ..

>> as all members know, being effective and many other tasks including responsibilities to chair meetings, go to groups, and meet con stitch -- constituents, and as a result we cannot always sit in the chamber all the time amendments are going on. if it was easy to work out the amendments before the debates, maybe more would actually contribute. it's obviously good for democracy to know what you're voting on, but it's important that we have a system that members of the public who want to follow a bill can easily understand. currently, citizens have to go separately to the bill, look up the clause, then go to the notes of any given bill to make any sense of what is going on if

they are following it on twitter or if following on the television, and so we need a remedy -- >> [inaudible] >> with pleasure -- >> she mentioned -- i was just asking whether she thinks an extension of what we already do. there's notes saying what a bill douse, and it's just common sense especially for those without legal training. i experienced this in the bill committee seeing an amendment approved by another member and reading what it does to the cause, but what are they getting at here? it's not clear until the debate starts. this would certainly address that problem. >> i thank the honorable member's intervention, and agree what she said. this is an extension of the common sense already bringing to bear, brought to bear in other areas of the debate. with pleasure. >> maybe i've been reading different notes than the one the honorable member has.

i've never known a set of notes to explain anything, ever, and i fear that explanatory notes on amendments will be equally -- what would be worse, and the explanatory statement is not required whether the amendment itself is self-explanatory. [laughter] >> you can make a little fun of this, but it is incredibly useful. if you condense it down to 150 words on what you try to achieve, people have more sense of what's going on. if you want to say it's absolutely fine that people don't know what they are voting for, that's fine for him, but i'm not happy with that. i wanted to talk about the ongoing pie lots in the public bill committee stage that's permissive allowing members to make statements about amendments 23 they wish. what we need to do is make those

pilots permanent and so they are enabled to make statements to the whole house and at the report stage. it begs to relief a government that wants a healthier democracy was so negative in the committee's recommendation of the statement on the floor of the house. why is the government blocking this simple move seeking to make sure they are not rubber stamper legislation and prevent the government's sneaking things throw the report stage. the government tries to use the low take up of the bill committee pilot to change the status quo on the floor of the house, but that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. first, the government well knows mp's and public bill committees will be thoroughly engaged in the bill and the members of the pvc voting on an amendment they already discussed is different from a division on the floor of the house where 650 members, of course, vote, the majority of

whom have no idea the specifics of what they are voting on. explanatory statements, in other words, are not for those who table them, but vote on them. the suggestion that a lack of action creates for a lack of demand doesn't stack up. if the government wants 20 measure demand, why not run it down to the division bell all asking each other what is going on, what are we voting on? furthermore, the government should have been leading on this pilot. if they made the effort to make statements themselves consistently, they could have created a culture where this was expected. they did nothing to assist in the simple pilot to increase transparency. when i tabled statements alongside my amendments and all sides found it helpful. it's a matter of leading and working to change the standards of what we expect when they try to change legislation. >> [inaudible] >> i will. >> i thank the honorable

member. as i understand it, this proposal doesn't require the government to, or anyone, tabling an amendment to provide an explanation, but merely allowed them to. agree with me that actually it requires government -- agree with me, thank you for that intervention. i appreciate that. >> [inaudible] >> apologies. would she agree with me that actually this should be a requirement on anyone wanting to table an amendment to just slightly boost the chance that people have some idea of what it is they are voting on. that's what people people have no idea what they're doing when they vote. >> i thank the member for his intervention. absolutely, i agree with him it's the case not just for the government, but all members. if they have a amendment, explain the stance of that ea. i think that would be helpful for everybody. the government's complaints about these amendments, these explanatory statements 20 amendments 245 they've said in their response to the

committee's report would be that it would be a burden. this idea that this would be too burdensome for them displays incredible arrogance. if they want to change the laws, they have to make their actions transparent. this is about redressing the balance of back benches and executives. the executives are riding over the benches to scrutinize them. the directions they give to desire a massive imbalance in their favor, i think that's bad. it's bad for democracy and the legislation we must live by. so long as they are not told what they are voting for and amendments go throw without date, our system delivers an illusion of scrutiny. i think the government is trying to protect the system is receivers to keep them as lobbies and keep the public in the dark, secretive, of processes serving against transparency, rem necessary sent of the processes reserved for so

long in order to hide the expensive scandal. i assume they are doing that with some deliberate measures in mind, but the fact that mp's have no idea what they are voting on is a scandal. it's beginning throughout the years, but if the public finds out more about it, i believe they will be rightly horrified. eight months of pass since the debate on partment ri reform and -- parliamentary reform, and i hope the motion on explanatory statement goes through today, and if it does, it will be a quiet, but significant win for transparency in democracy. the government forces a vote, i hope very much that that bench stands up for themselves to address a glaring hole in the democracy and correct the imbalance that currently favors the executives. >> roger gail. >> i'll be brief. i rise to support the amendment in the name of my honorable

friend in north wiltshire. i'm concerned. the impacts of the proposals of the behavior on committee. i fear that if the report goes through as suggested it will, and that impact is felt on the floor of the house, then it's almost inevitable those in the business of chairs committees upstairs, will be under similar pressures to allow similar devices in committee. what we experienced in the house over the last few years is a shift from the way of notes and a participation in gene knew win date of this which -- debate of which this country has been proud in parliamentary term to the preparation and reading of speeches, speeches by the members of concern or by other people who read the speeches for them. that's become particularly

present where it's not great secret that members own both sides of the house take fast tracks of briefs prepared by lobbyists for the sole purpose of putting something on the record. that's not debate. it's a misuse and abuse of the processes of this house. if we are now to suggest that honorable members of the both sides of the house are going to be able to twitter and tweet and receive comment in the course of the debates, then it's inevitable there's people in the public gallery sending messagings message -- messages say tell him this or that. that's not what this is about. members can be and should be expected to sit down, listen to the debate, hear what other members are saying, agree, disagree, and comment accordingly, not to read out prepared speeches.

mr. deputy speaker, as the chairman of the ways and means, you have been, as was your preed predecessor, extremely understanding in giving leeway of those of us who chair committees in managing the business of the house, on the floor of the house, when there's a committee of the whole house, or in committee in our own way, and in interest of the members and the business that they are trying to get through, and it works. any man, any woman in the chair whether it's the big chair there or the slightly smaller chair in other committee rooms has to exercise the nelson touch as we do so constantly. we know what's going on. we know that on occasions the processes was house are abused. we know that honorable members are busy people. we know that within the next six weeks before christmas, seven tables will be piled with cards being signed well members are off at parties. that's inevident inevitable. it's multitasking.

what i, as a chairman, objected is happening in a committee i was presiding over, where a front spokes bench person, and i won't name the party, was so upset with the electronic device and manipulation of this machine that they actually missedded the amendment that they were suppose -- missed the amendment that they were supposed to be moving. i failed to get their attention and draw them back to the business that they were to be participating in. that's nonsense. mr. deputy speaker, i'm going to be brief. let me speak. outside the committee rooms upstairs there's benches and tables and phones where you can work, send messages, receive messages, have coffee, do what they like outside the committee room. i can see no place, actually, for these electronic devices in the committee room at all anymore than i can see any reason for why members should be

in there reading newspapers or magazines, also not allowed. that said, indeed used mist, i, on occasions have received messages while on the chair. i tell them i can't talk to them because i'm in committee, and i'll ring them when i can. i don't have a problem with that. i don't know a chairman that does. i don't have a problem with the sensible use, the quiet use, respectful use in the way the house of laws, the other end of the building has adopted this procedure. i think if we go down the route prepared, which is to be proposed because it hasn't been yet, by the member from north wiltshire, we should achieve what we want to achieve which is pragmatic protecting the dig dignity of the house, and i urge the house to accept the amendment. >> thank you, mr. deputy speaker, and i rise to support the proposal that i think very ably puts forward my right

honorable friend, and he is my friend, the member for east yorkshire, who just printed an incredible book. i thank you for that as well. wish him every success. available on all book shelf. when i intervened earlier on on my right honorable friend, i suggest the actually in addition to the proposals he put forward, we should really make sure we have wireless reception here in the house of commons chamber because, you know, quite frankly, not so long ago when i was trying to tweet during prime minister's questions, advertised the fact that i would try to do so in advance, i failed completely due to the vague reception we sometimes get here on our electronic advices, and i apologize in doing that, and in making that admission, i was breaking rules of the house at that time. can i clarify one thing,

mr. deputy speaker, and that is i did have a little conversation earlier this year in the chamber with the member who told us with characteristic modesty he was the first to sign up. i can't invoke him after i mentioned him. but thank you for the modesty. it's very kind. we did have that discussion. i think things have moved somewhat. but i did accidently speak earlier of the current mp's, i believe i was the first one. i was not the first on twitter. i don't know who has that honor, but i'm sure they'll claim that later. >> i appreciate the modesty. it was meant to be ironic, and he doesn't pick that up well, so that gives me the opportunity to make that clear and save another proposal i made in the past that i should put it in italics so everybody outside reading it

they can understand what was meant, but i'm grateful for his intervention, but the discussion we had was in relation to the fact that i did raise a point while you, indeed, were in the chair, mr. deputy speaker, while you, indeed, were in the chair, and at that time, your ruling, mr. deputy speaker, was interpreted as a ban on the use of twitter in the chamber. i know having subsequent talks with you, that's not what you meant, but the objection -- >> it's certainly not any other than what i said. it was not what i meant. it's the people are not listening, i think. [laughter] >> i stand corrected, mr. deputy speaker, and, of course, whatever you said was very wise indeed, but to return to the point about the honorable member from cambridge, my point of order related to the use of twitter in the chamber in a course of the debate when he was

disputing something that was being said from the dispatched box from another member. it's often a reasonable concern raised by opponents of this about how this could impact on the quality of debate, and i always thought if you have a point of dispute or a question about what's being said by somebody on the floor of the house of chamber at that time, then you should attempt to intervene before you start putting out a message to speaking to what they're saying. it's a curtesy and common sense which the right honorable member is calling for, the committee is calling for, in the recommendations they made to us today. now, i met yesterday, mr. deputy speaker, with a delegation from the school with the communist party of china in this house, and they were vest interested in what i had to say about communications and twitter and the way mp's use them. if i tell the house, they may

not be surprised that the communist party of china was skeptical about my advocacy of the use of twitter. honorable members might understand i think it's a force for good and for democracy and for free speech and for communication without constituents, another source, you know, for bad, and a lot of the members opposite who have concerns, and i understand what their concerns are, i think might find themselves embracing this means of communication with their constituents and beyond that in the near future as a good way of getting the messages that they have about politics in their views out there and engaging in a moment, engaging in an interactive discussion with their constituents. i'll give way to the honorable gentleman. >> i thank the honorable gentleman for giving way, and i agree with everything he said. do you not agree that actually social media, twitter and facebook and so on actually give mp's the chance to forecast to

their constituents without relying on forecasters themselves? >> i do agree with the honorable member actually, and it goes further than that. it actually also leads on sometimes to opportunities to broadcast through the more conventional media. as an example, yesterday, some honorable members know that i asked the welsh secretary questions 20 ask the prime minister next to her to make sure the welsh flag was flying over 10 downing street this weekend to acknowledge the achievements of the welsh rugby team. after the prim minister's questions, i was invited to a phone in on radio wales and by five o'clock that evening, and i credit the minister for that who agreed the flag could be flying.

quickly, media and the networks is a good example of how the technology is beneficial. for the last time i'll give way, because i was not intending to take my full time. >> giving way to the last intervention whether he agrees certainly it can be useful to broadcast the real value of this interactions and not solely broadcast mp's messaging constituents. it allows two-ways communications to engage people in the political process. >> yes, i did just about hear over the twittering of the colleagues at the bar. [laughter] she's absolutely right. that was the point i was about to make, but i won't because she made it for me by her intervention in the interest of brevity. now, i did write an article alongside the honorable gentleman, the member from north brookshire in total politics magazine a few months ago where we debated these issues, and i think i made it clear that i

respect and understand where he's coming from on this. he wants to, as i understand honorable members and right honorable members opposite, want to maintain the representation of this place for quality of debate and make sure the debate doesn't descend into a simple parade of read-out speeches. i agree that is the death of debate in this place if that happens, but i think their fears, you know, are misplaced. i actually think that one can embrace and use in technology and these sorts of devices, and at the same time, actually enlisp and enhance our debate by bringing in information, yes, from outside, but what's wrong with that? if ministers get fueling from the officials box, why can't benches get inflight fueling electronically throughout the course of the speeches if there's a useful fact that can be drawn from outside. i don't see thinking wrong on being able to draw on all that information and expertise available from outside the

chamber. in our exchange of articles, i think the honorable gentleman made very interesting points, but i think i'll end really simply by saying this. there's nothing new in terms of political communication in trying to get a message across in a pissy memorable way in how twitter enables you to do. it was a certain wynn stone church hill who said never in the field of human conflict was never so much owed to so few. that would leave you with 66 of the 140 available characters on twitter still to play with if you issued that statement as a tweet, and i think it's just going to show really that, those who really want to fight the on onslaught of technology on the beaches i'm afraid will find the tide has turned against them.

>> james grey. >> thank you very much, indeed, for calling me, and thank you very much to you and mr. speaker for sleeking the member -- selecting the member that stands in my name for right honorable people who stand across the chamber. i thank you, too, for allowing a goodly amount of time for this important and useful debate. there have been a number of very useful speechings so far addressing most -- speeches so far addressing most of the important arguments on both sides of the debate. i agree with my right honorable friend who started off by saying this is a matter of taste and discretion of delicacy. one side is not definitely right or wrong, but it's a matter of how we handle the machines, what we use them for and make sure the debate is in the chamber as much as it can be. this issue has been amongst the highest of the matters, the

highest quality as it has been in recent weeks. from my honorable friend's report and was on the board, four of us signed the amendment disagreeing with the report from his article that is virtually any electronic device can be used for any purpose either in the chamber or in committee through to the right honorable gentleman, the forward deputy speaker whoation broad view is by no means on the matter, and his view is they should not be use the for any purpose whatsoever, and i have to steel you, deputy speaker, i received a message from a senior member of the house that i do not necessarily agree, said he felt the rule applied in the house should be the same as the rules applying at the opera, namely that we shamed not use them -- should not use them as all. in some sense, not necessarily myself agreeing with that. [laughter] not necessarily, if i may also

pick up, give you a solid, if that's all right, often quite agree if i may pick up on it with the honorable lady as was focused on the particular use of electronic devices for twitter. it is right that in my e-mail that i did mention twitter and blogging and just things we should probably not use, though i will come back in a moment as a way we may be able to use them as a right and not necessarily the twitter. the main thrust of the my argument and thought on the matter and a great number of honorable members who spoke about it, if we allow unfettered use of the device, three things will happen. the first is the quality of debate will decline, and perhaps i can just use an example in a case recently while chairing a committee stage with a public bill upstairs, and glancing around the room, some two-thirds

of the people on the committee were at that moment using electronic devices. that included both the ministers, both whips, and six to eight benches, one of whom used two electronic devices simultaneously. [laughter] now, it seems to me the fine technical appointments in regard to the pensions bill, because that was what it was, was not necessarily considered carefully by the two-thirds of the members really using the electronic devices at that time. i suggest had i challenged the committee to lay out what it was the speaker said, a very large percentage of them would have looked at me blankly and would have no idea what was going on. i blatantly ten -- accept what the lady said, but i don't believe that the finer points of argument in debate

will necessarily be picked up if you focus the mind on something else. the purpose of the debate is not just for one voice to be heard or get something on the record, just do that by handing the speech in like they do in the united states of america. it is to listen carefully and talk about delicate points in debate and hopefully we get a useful conclusion about it. i do not believe if you are focusing on emptying your inbox, surfing the net, maybe twittering, maybe who knows what else and there's the example more recently where a member was spotted surfing an escort site on his device. of course -- [inaudible] [laughter] if we are doing all of these things and listening carefully to the debate, i don't believe debates are taking place the way they should be.

>> the point the clerk touched upon, every member sits in front of a computer. earlier this year, williams passed away at a young age. one of the tributes painted by a labor member, he said on the radio, we stopped working on the computers, and we listened. isn't that the real issue here? >> that's a good point, and it's good to note his experience in the asemibly where this has happened and elsewhere around the world seeing all parliaments making use of the things would not taking proper part in the debate. in past, i chaired a paper from the whip who reminds me that he says i wouldn't have got it. she reminds me to say, i beg to move the amendment b. [laughter] i do indeed say so. >> that's very useful intervention from my friend, and

second reason why i feel uneasy about unfettered use of electronic devices. outside interests and dare i say, the whip's office, has influence on what we do, what when say, or how we vote in this place. they had had influence prior to the debate. it's unhelpful if during a speech or during the court of debate, outside interests, lobbyists, businesses, groups of all kinds were to get in touch in the chamber on our electronic devices says ask the minister this question because it's a weak point of the argument or do this or do that. i think we should be listening carefully to the logic of the other person's speech, and seeking to counter that argument, not because a lobbying company -- >> will the honorable member -- >> but because we believe that it's something we actually want to do ourselves. of course, i'll yield. >> this honorable friend will not accept that that is actually

possible under the rule as it stands now? it is perfectly possible under the rules of the house to receive a message and check it. that could happen right now. >> my honorable friend is absolutely right, and the purpose of the amendment is to say the use of electronic devices is for purposes on the matter of the debate and no other purpose. seeing a chamber full of people blogging, twittering, and surfing the net, brings the quality of the debate into dispute. >> i thank the member for giving way. would you not agree one of the reason mp's agree exist so people can lobby them to influence? isn't that why we are here? >> that's absolutely right. he is a professional lobbyist for a number of years, so no argument whatsoever. [laughter] he's been around the world, journalist, lobby groups, and organizations make their views known to us.

i'm uncertain about the propriety about a lobbyist or group getting in touch with us during an event, saying actually, here's a interesting point to raise. is it right, really, for cross examination for outside interest groups to get in touch with us by electronic devices saying this is something you should say. that's an unreasonable intervention in our internal debates here with outside differences, obviously. i'll give way, of course. i'm interested in what the honorable gentleman will say during the select committee cross-examination, and it was irrespective of outside interest in what i just said to him. >> i was not on the select committee, but that's just a reminder of inaccuracy and several others we're passing by. the point i'm going to make then is one of the oldest right that the members of the public and constituents have is the right to come to the lobby and demand

we come out of a debate to listen to their point of views, so i don't see what the difference is. >> the difference, of course, is extremely simple. the equivalent of having a device of someone outside speaking to us is a member of the public coming to the lobby to speak. it's a member of the public coming into the chamber saying please ask this question here. i don't believe that's right. we should be debating amongst ourselves and not involvings outside people. now, there's two or three objections. most people agree the acceptive use of devices are not a good thing, but three objections. the first of the question of the fact we all sit here for six to seven hours before we are called to speak in some debate. that could be corrected by taking a greater interest in the debate itself. [laughter] secondly, i think we can move towards a system enjoyed at the other end of the house where they do some kind of indication involved as to when they speak, and you, mr. speaker, and all of your colleagues do tend to give

indications of when that will be. the demotion we sit here clearing our -- the notion we sit here clearing our inboxes because we are bored and don't listen to the debate, is a thin argument. of course. >> i'm grateful. he makes his case powerfully, but i don't necessarily agree with it. isn't the key issue here, the way in which we best engage in debate is by being here in this chamber in this debate. it's outside doing the work, clearing the inbox, the example he gave, we can't be present listening to the arguments. i agree with him. more people should be in the chamber more often, and i believe his amendment will prevent that. >> on the contrary. my amendment encourages members who are sitting here in this chamber to use their electronic device for purposes with the debate. that seems to be the important part of the amendment. last point, i think, which the objection is raised is that my amendment is debatable to

believe, and you, yourself, mr. speaker, sent a letter in july that it's bad to have a ban on devices and those things referring to the debate. it would nonetheless be down to the individual discretion and decency of members not to use them. >> in this place, there's all kinds of debates, rules, all of us observe. they don't have to be written down or believed. they are the fact, the fact that they are things that we agreed to do, and i think this is one of them. it seems to be, mr. speaker, if we were to allow the procedure report to be agreed as printed, we land up with a room full of members of parliament starring at their devices, we land up with an entire room of people starring at devices, and i suspect looking in from outside. is that from the public gallery or from the screens? would we say, what are the people doing? we used to say the chamber was too empty, and now it's filled

up more, but look at them all playing with their electronic devices. it brings the whole nature of debate in this place into dispute. i'd like to see the disability here maintain, we are the member of parliaments. let us engage in detailed logical debate, and let's not spend excessive amount of time on our electronic devices. >> the amendment has been made and submitted. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i just like to, with the leads of the house, spend a brief moment putting on record my tribute to the work of my predecessor, the honorable member from the north who tried to pass in the house and it's a hard act to follow. mr. deputy speaker, we stand in support today as an opposition. in the statements motion put forward by the chair of the

committee, we believe that this motion, and this recommendation from the select committee marks progress from a position already established. as sins it, there -- as i understand it, this is a document that i hope receives support from all sides of the house today. we also support this very sensible recommendations made with regard to parliamentary questions. we do believe this is 5 sensible move, and partly, i think we would argue it's dispensable because alternatives to tabled electronically tabled written questions do exist, and this recommendation does not, in any way if implemented, curtail opportunities for members of this house to table written questions. we do, however, believe that the amendments relating to the select committee's right, potential right to table amendments to legislation,

should be given back, sent back to the select committee for further consideration. we do not believe this recommendation has been thor rely thought out, and we believe, as i said, we take away the consideration. this is partly, of course -- >> this recommendation was brought forward by the drug committee on human rights in the last parliament, considered by the liaison committee, and now substantially modified to meet those concerns. are we in another case of the two front benches conniving to stop select committees from back benches having rights in this house? >> excellent thought, mr. speaker, but the point i was making from this, mr. speaker, is this. if we give select committees the right to table amendments to legislation, to business relations to the floor of the house and stand in committee,

does that not in itself create the danger that select committees will be less con sense wall in terms of the way they approach the work that they doo, do, and that's the real risk with this recommendation put forward today, and for that reason, we believe it should go back to further consideration. mr. deputy speaker, i'd now to turn to the recommendation of hand-held electronic devices. i don't need to repeat the backgrounds of the debate going back to the decision, competitive of course, in 2007. as outlined earlier, by yorkshire east, social security good to say technology has moved forward at a rapid pace to the extent we have smart phones, ipads, and other forms of alerts that have completely transformedded the ways in which men of this house do business. on top of that, we now have new forms of communication.

according to the select committee report, 225 members of this house tweet or have twittering thes. we heard -- twitter accounts. we heard earlier in the debates that the number stapedes at 300, -- stands at 300, and 245 demonstrates in -- that demonstrates there's been 75 members of this house sign up for twittering thes. that shows the popularity of this device for a means of communication. for that reason alone, mr. deputy speaker, i have to say increasingly members of this house are seeing new forms of communication like twitter make it easier for us to open up a dialogue with the world outside, with the people we serve, and also that these new forms of communication, and new forms of technology, are alled coo question once -- called into question once again. mr. speaker, i was elected to

this house in 2005. never, at that point, did i think i would be standing here at the front bench making arguments about smart phones, ipods, and twitter accounts, and that just in itself demonstrates how quickly the world is moving forward and how difficult it is for the house to keep up. it would be all too easy, in fact, to say we should step backwards and pretend the world has not changed. we could pretend that these jobs never existed and say too ourselves that the business of the house should be true to the days of paper, pen, and ink, but to do that would be to deny reality, and to deny the dynamic relationship that now exists between parliament and the world outside. even if we deny it, the media, quite rightly, will not. we cannot bear forward legislate to fulfill our obligations effectively if we pretend the

world outside has not got smaller and smaller in terms of how quickly news travels in today's world. mr. deputy speaker, there are reports on advantages and disadvantages and there's a reluctant approach on hand-held devices by members on the floor of the house and in committee. for it is undoubtedly the case that members of the public do sometimes object to seeing members of this house using their phones or their ipods while here in the chamber, and mr. chair, i'm sure they would testify to that fact. >> [inaudible] >> of course. >> thank you. i very much welcome the honorable lady's remarks. while it's true some members of public object, there's other members who like the fact that their mp's are actually on this communicating what they are actually doing, and we're

reaching out that you would also not agree that this is a huge shift from paper and mail to how our constituents community kate with us. >> that's absolutely the argument i'm trying to make here this afternoon in the chamber, and that actually, i would say that although some members of the public have lack of tapings to the business of the house, and i would have said on occasion, that has proved to be true. i also, and i have to say excessive and obtrusive use of such devices should be deplored equally, i contest the excessive chapter and prize a conversation on the part of it that's deplored. and that actually, it's advanced members of the house -- [laughter] who persist in that kind of behavior --

[laughter] who make business -- [inaudible] equally, i agree with members who pointed out it's members of the house who fall asleep in the chamber while business is discussed and that's considered courteous behavior. it's known on occasions that even members of the front bench to fall asleep or to snooze while the business of the house is ongoing. [laughter] but, of course, we need to be pragmatic in our approach towards all of this, and we need to bear in mind, too, that those who would continue a stricter approach to the use of hand-held devices in the chamber on the grounds that it constitutes interference in parliamentary proceedings, keep in mind, we already allow the passing of messages in envelopes announcing to the chamber to use in

debate. on that basis, why can't we allow the lek -- electronic information to pass in the chamber? it's past statistics relating to a debate by a document passed to her or him in an inveal lope brought to the chamber by a member of his or her staff, then why should it be done independent if i'm the mp in the chamber using the electronic device? given that civil servants have a fairly constant stream of notes during the course of debate, why should other members of the house not be able to access information speedily and without delay? it was pointed out by a member that yorkshire is. mr. deputy speaker, we support the motion laid before the house today by the member of yorkshire and other members, and we commend the procedure committee for its work. we believe it represents a pragmatic response to the

challenges raised by the developments of new technology amid the communication, and that it requires members to be sensible and discreet about their use of electronic devices in this chamber and elsewhere. we also support the recommendations in the select committee report relating to twitter and to tweets in which our view are insensible and pragmatic and someone who does have a twitter account, i know it's about to get her is 1,000th follower, i believe one who does not generally tweet in the chamber, i nevertheless oppose the right and the inevitable pragmatic need to give way on this point. we should allow the approach recommended by the committee speaker and opportunities to work and that we should be bearing in mind that it's always possible to review the decision if it's felt the recommended way forward is not working.

thank you, mr. deputy speaker. >> [inaudible] >> i hope it is, mr. deputy speaker. [laughter] >> i'm still somewhat feeling my way in in place. [laughter] there is another debate on this afternoon brought about by the back bench business committee as a consequence of the one of the first e-petitions. as i understand it, i may have got this wrong, this debate can carry on to any hour, but judging by the number of colleagues who are staying in their place, it looks as if the second debate is going to actually get less time than the west minister thought of it, and i hope in those circumstances, if that is the case, they get squeezed out, the leader of the house might well consider giving that second vote, an important vote that affects constituents and this house, have entry time at some point.

>> the leader of the house tried to protect the debate by tabling a motion last night. sadly, it was blocked by a member of the back bench business committee. >> [inaudible] >> well, what i would say is that i'm very concerned about the amount of time this is taking up. i'll reduce the amount of time of speakers and hope to get brevity to debate. quite rightly, the high speed debate is important to the house, and people can't understand why we're spending so much time on this as important as it is, we have to make progress as quickly as possible. the leader of the house. >> mr. deputy speaker, high speed debate is a good idea. can i open up by saying because i didn't get the opportunity to do so in cameo appearances, a warm welcome to the lady in her new responsibility and echo what

she said about her predecessor who i always enjoyed debating with, and i wish her well in new responsibilities. can i also say to the right honorable gentleman, the chairman of the procedure committee, who i congratulate on securing this debate on his committee's proposal today, the one area where i have to say i disagree with him in his reference as to whether this debate should be in the time of the back bench business committee. we, as a government, have implemented the right committee's report, and the right committee's report was absolutely explicit on this, and we hold to that position that what the right committee report said on this matter should be the position of the house and it is the responsibility of the back bench business committee. i welcome the opportunity to set out the government's position on the motions, and i will take them in order. the issues raised by the first motion on electronic devices are very much a house of commons matter, but perhaps i can indicate that both i and my

right honorable friend, the leader, will be supporting the motion, although there are some colleagues who may have other views. changes in technology have been swift, and i think the committee has taken a sensible approach in seeking to update the res lyings of r -- resolution of 2007 that may not need constant updating as technology changes. it is in line with trends in other legislatures. i think the adoption from the u.s. house of representatives of the concept of now impairing decorum is helpful, and i'm sure that the speaker will decide with characteristic wisdom on how this interpreted in practice like the speaker provided general guidance an the appropriate conduct in the chamber. i also support changes for committees. one reservation in that republic referred to by the procedure committee that tweeting about an ongoing evidence session is

discourteous and disclosing deliberations in this way would or could be a breach of privilege. that's an important reservation to enter at this point. there's no government position on the amendment tabled by the honorable member of the north wiltshire and others, although, it seems to me enforcements recommended that way might pose significant challenges for the occupants of the chair. i notice that the right honorable member, the member for east yorkshire in opposing the amendment said that why should members not receive facts once they are preparing to speak. it's because it demolishes the speeches, but just because you receive a fact does not mean you take notice of it. on select committee motions, we part here with the committee because we don't, as a government, believe the case for this change has been made. in this, we are continuing the

position of the previous government, and i think continued by the honorable lady's position in opposition. interestingly, it was expressed at the time by the right honorable gentleman, and i'm not sure whether he still takes the same view. all amendments at present are tabled in the name of the member of the house it doesn't matter whether it's a government amendment, and amendment from the official opposition, or anybody else. the procedure committee argues that if an amendment simply appears in the names of members of a select committee, other members may not realize it status. i am not convinced by this argument. the government's taken a number of steps to strengthen the system, arguably more than any government than that in 1979, under which the departmental select committees were established enabling the house to take select committee chairs and the system continues to

increase. i believe that an amendment in the name of members of the a select committee will almost invariably be recognized as such by the house without the need for additional steps. >> [inaudible] >> of course. >> i'm surprised to be in disagreement with my friend on a house matter. we rarely disagree, but the kind of amendment we're talking about is one that had to be approved unanimously by the committee, and if his real fear not that of the whip's office that on just one or two more occasions, an amendment not moved by 5 minister might be selected by the chair, might achieve debate in the house, and he is not echoing the traditional front bench view that allows back benches get near selecting amendments is too dangerous tore submitted. >> it's rare when i disagree with my right honorable friends, but i do on this matter.

the selection of amendments 1, of course, a matter for the chair, and if the chair feels the select committee members offer something that needs to be debated, and they will take that view, but it does worry me, and i think it is a serious concern that it is still open under the proposal of the committee that three members of a committee, because they would form a quorum may have an amendment, and the measure would attribute to all members 234 committee, a position only head by those present at a particular meeting, and i don't think that that does the house a service. now, well -- yes -- >> i have to correct the point particularly because i do not intend to delay this debate further by speaking myself on the subject because i want to have a real debate to go ahead, but my honorable friend must recognize is that any member of the committee who felt dissatisfied having been notified without going to the meeting and table the amendment

to the committee is clear, indeed, as i think all members from north wilkshire made clear he didn't support his friend in the amendment he put forward. >> i'm sure that would be clear, but equally, it's not for reason a chair of the sect committee makes it clear he or she was presenting an amendment in the name of the select committee. i think the same arguments apply, and i'm not persuaded by my right honorable friends' arguments and that's why my and my administrative colleagues will oppose that motion. turning to the third motion, and here i address the remarks of the honorable lady because the main construction -- crux of what she said is the government was unreasonably unhelpful in the approach to this issue. now, when it is quoted in the committee's report that my honorable friend, the leader of

the house said, i would certainly not oppose the continuation of the statement, and it is quoted in the report, my own comment, i'm happy as far as the governments are concerned for that experiment to proceed, it is said the barriers we sought to erect this from happening are rather low ones indeed, and i'll repeat the position today that the government will support this recommendation, but we are going to intercaveats for the benefit of the house because it's important we use it. i give way to the honorable lady. >> i thank the honorable member for giving way. i think what he was saying essentially is my objection was against the voluntary agreement -- the agreement was to the voluntary introduction of the explanatory statement. we want something more mandatory, and it's true to say in his response to the committee's word, words like "significant burden" "lukewarm

support" are strong suggestions that the government is not strongly behind this. >> the lukewarm response is not from the government. you would be happy that the present government and previously, but very happy to put down explanatory amendments. the lukewarm response was from other members of the house who showed not the slightest inclination not to do so. that's the concern. if we go back to the origins of this, the experiment with explanatory comments in its 2006 report under the chairmanship, and the committee then envisioned the main benefit would be in helping ministers and civil servants to understand the intention behind back bench and opposition amendments so ministers prepare to address the issues the member realliments debated -- really wants debated and make clear the issues raised. it's a vehicle of back benches

to explain their amendments rather than necessarily for the government to explain its amendments for which there are many other mechanisms. despite this, all though the government's participated fully in each pilot, the take up by back benches is low and declined after the first pilot. there are implicationings, -- implications and it would involve additional cost in excess of 100,000 pounds alone, and greater cost if applied, and that takes noing the of the stark resource -- no account of the stark resources in the house and government. although the government agreed to provide notes to all in parliament and the committees of the requirement for government amendments at the report stage, at the same time, the committee rejected imposing a requirement on others. now, i take it from what the lady said, she would like that to apply in a mandatory sense. i think there is justification

for that. what there is little justification for is the asmet -- asmet corral approach we have. it's the last chance to show the voluntary approach as far as others orn the government's -- owner the government's will actually work as envisioned by the modernization committee, and we will wait and see the experiment successfully showing and demonstrating clear value for money benefits for the house. if it doesn't, then we may be in a position to decline to support further proposals along the same line. i'm also able to support, in conclusion, mr. speaker, the time motion we're debating on written questions. it's a pilot only whereby there's a cutoff for table questions and a daily quota of five written questions to be tabled this way for three months.

the right table questions belongs to honorable members and them alone. if the experiment encourages members to take a closer interest in questions prepared by their staff, that would surely be a good thing. the average cost to the taxpayer of the questions is 239 pounds. although overall questions are not prepared, they want to be mindful of the cost of what they are doing. ensuring that all written questions receive timely, substantive answers. if a pilot leads to fewer, better questions as the procedure committee hopes, then i hope also to see quicker, better answers. we will provide the statistics on the timeliness of answers in the current session of the timetable requested by the committee. mr. speaker, to end where i began, i also confirm that the government is key to work closely to the house authorities to take forward proposals of electronic distribution of an