---

Parliamentary Reform

I agree completely. The neatness to the solution of having private Members' Bills on Tuesday or Wednesday evenings is this. One of the arguments against the old hours was that, ““Well, the place is dead in the evenings,”” but there would be plenty to discuss for those who wish to stay and take part. That would acknowledge the fact that we have responsibilities to our constituencies, which we all understand, and would not put us in a bind. As for amendments and explanations, I am absolutely in favour of the recommendation. We had an experiment, but not everyone did so. A simple way to ensure that everybody does it is to say that those who want to table an amendment must offer an explanation or it will not be considered. Turning to the broader questions, many hon. Members have mentioned balancing competing pressures on time, and we happen to be sitting in one of the solutions. The Adjournment debates that take place in Westminster Hall are hugely important for Back Benchers who want to raise issues and get an answer from Ministers. A number of ideas relating to that have been suggested by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) and others. The Procedure Committee has recommended that we use this place to question Ministers on written ministerial statements, which is a most sensible suggestion that I hope the House will adopt. The other question is who should control the time, as we seek to expand it to deal with the competing demands. The second matter is the fundamental one of the balance of power between the legislature and the Executive.