What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of topical debates.

I have issued a written ministerial statement today setting out a timetable for a review of topical debates and setting up a procedure for publishing subjects proposed by Members. I welcome comments from Members to that review.

So, yet another review, from the Government of review, review, review: may I suggest to the Leader of the House that there is no need for a review this time? The public want topical debates so that we in the House are right up to date, but they do not want Government media stunts instead of topical debates.

The right hon. Gentleman criticises the proposed review, but we have to make decisions on important matters, such as the business of the House and issues that affect the lives of people outside it. To do that, we need the facts: we have to consult people and listen to what they say, and that means that we have to have a review. Doing things on the back of an envelope for the sake of a cheap headline is something that I shall leave to the Opposition.

To have more effective topical questions, can we double the time allotted to them and halve the amount of time allocated to Front-Bench Members in topical debates?

Topical questions have been working well, and we do not propose to review them at the moment. The topical debates have caused controversy but, as I said, I have issued a written ministerial statement about them this morning. I want to seek the views of hon. Members on all sides of the House so that we can discuss how to take matters forward. We will then make further proposals to the House.

In her ministerial statement on topical debates, the Leader of the House says that she will publish a quarterly list of the subjects that have been proposed, but the Modernisation Committee has recommended that that list should be published every fortnight. Why has the right hon. and learned Lady gone for the longer option? In addition, will she publish the names of the people proposing the subjects? I am sure that it would be of considerable interest to the House to know whether a subject had been proposed by a Back Bencher with a genuine interest in it—or by, say, the Government Chief Whip, with an eye to his own media agenda.

I shall take those suggestions as a contribution to the review. I should point out that the subject for this afternoon's topical debate was chosen, not by the Chief Whip, but by Mrs. May, who is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman.