Annex 2: Early Day Motions-Analysis of questionnaire
sent to all Members
Number of responses: 264[92]
The average number of EDMs tabled each sitting week
has nearly doubled since 2000-01. Should the House take steps
to limit the total number of EDMs?
| YES | NO
| NO REPLY |
| 102 (39%) | 151 (57%)
| 4% |
There are currently very few restrictions on the subject matter
of EDMs. Some have argued that this has led to a proliferation
of EDMs on inappropriate subjects. Should there be additional
restrictions on the content of EDMs (one possibility might be
that, like an adjournment debate, the subject of an EDM would
have to engage ministerial responsibility)?
| YES | NO
| NO REPLY |
| 122 (46%) | 128 (48%)
| 6% |
EDMs must be drafted as a single sentence of not more than 250
words. They must call upon the House to do something (e.g. note
an event; congratulate a team; deplore a failing). Should these
requirements of form be retained?
| YES | NO
| NO REPLY |
| 107 (42%) | 42 (16%)
| 42% |
It has been suggested that opportunities should be created for
some EDMs, which have demonstrated a certain level of support
(possibly measured by number of signatures), to be debated. Do
you believe that it should be possible for some EDMs to be debated?
| YES | NO
| NO REPLY |
| 116 (44%) | 37 (14%)
| 42% |
Members can table parliamentary questions electronically. Should
it also be possible to table and/or add names to EDMs electronically?
| YES | NO
| NO REPLY |
| 200 (76%) | 50 (19%)
| 5% |
92 The percentage figures are based on the total number
of responses Back
| 
