6 Pre-recess adjournment debates
62. For many years it was customary for the last
day before each of the main parliamentary recesses to be used
for a day-long general debate where Members could raise any subject
and a government response would be given at the end of the debate,
usually by the Deputy Leader of the House.
63. Since 2010 the Government has made most or all
of these days available for backbench business. We experimented
with a new approach to these pre-recess debates. We invited Members
to submit in advance a subject and answering department of their
choice. We then grouped speeches into subject areas and invited
a Minister from the department or departments with the greatest
number of speeches to respond to the issues raised. We also retained
part of the debate (the last two hours) for Members who wished
to raise other subjects which were not included in the departmental
sections.
64. After several debates organised in this new way
had been held, we reviewed the experiment. It had brought some
gains, in that Members who raised subjects relating to the chosen
Departments undoubtedly received a more detailed and specialised
response from the departmental Ministers. There were, though,
several problems.
65. Firstly, there was an even spread of Departments
from which Members wanted responses. This meant that we had to
select three Departments at random and meant everyone else had
to wait till the last two-hour general debate slot. The time available
during the debate, therefore, was not evenly distributed between
the full range of subjects which Members wished to raise.
66. It also meant that Members who had not submitted
their names in advance were able to jump in to the departmental
debates, thereby shortening further the general part of the debate
of those Members who had submitted in advance. This was an insurmountable
problem without having a speakers' list, which we felt was highly
undesirable.
67. The additional time used by Ministers responding
also ate into the time in which backbenchers could have made contributions,
rather than leaving it to the Deputy Leader of the House to wind
up at the end.
68. We concluded that, on balance, the advantages
of the new procedure were outweighed by the disadvantages and
therefore discontinued it and reverted to the earlier practice
of holding a single general debate. We have, though, ensured that
the Deputy Leader of the House follows up issues raised in Pre-Recess
Adjournment Debates more assiduously.
| 
