Leader of the House – in the House of Commons at 10:30 am on 9 October 2008.
What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of Public Bill Committees in taking oral and written evidence.
We have made an assessment of the effectiveness of the new system of Public Bill Committees taking oral and written evidence, which seems to be working well.
I have pleasure in agreeing with the Minister, and I too congratulate him on his appointment. We have known each other for a long time—in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on which we both served, I hasten to add. But does he accept that while the innovation is to be applauded and welcomed, it can only be acceptable if there is sufficient time to take evidence? Often, such Committees have insufficient time and the people whom Members want to interview are unavailable. What can we do to extend the amount of interview time?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I think that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that we are delighted that the Colombian police have released him so that he can be with us today.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The system is new. Clearly, it is considerably better that Committees are able to take written and oral evidence, and it is entirely up to Committees whether they choose to do so. In the past year, most Committees that have had the opportunity to take such evidence have done so if pre-legislative scrutiny has not already taken place. In the Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, Mr. O'Brien made it clear that he was extremely happy with the amount of time and the organisation of the witnesses provided. Likewise, in the Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, Mr. Gibb was absolutely delighted with the consensus on the programme motion. Perhaps we need to consider some points, but I think that the system is working well.