By Sam Macrory - 11th April 2011
With many newer Members sceptical about the usefulness of Early-Day Motions (EDMs), Sam Macrory asks parliamentarians and lobbyists whether this established campaigning tool is anything more than parliamentary graffiti.
Don’t pretend you haven’t done it. A client wants an issue raised in Parliament. That’s fine, you tell them, you will persuade an MP to put down an Early-Day Motion (EDM). Client satisfied. But should they be?
An EDM appears to carry clout. Tabled at the Vote Office in the House of Commons by an MP, it then gathers signatures as it is circulated around the Palace of Westminster.
Judging by the number of EDMs tabled this Parliament – 1,756 since last May – MPs seem to value their worth, but a growing body of parliamentary opinion is not convinced. EDMs, they say, are a lazy way to imply that something is being done, and even the parliamentary website admits that ‘very few EDMs are actually debated’. Instead, critics argue, an EDM is little more than parliamentary graffiti. In the internet age, it could be compared to a ‘re-tweet’ or clicking Facebook’s ‘like’ icon – a fleeting show of support at best.
Critics’ charges are more serious. An EDM, they sat, is time-consuming, pointless, and expensive. In the 2009-2010 Parliament – which saw 1,248 EDMs tabled – the cost of printing EDMs was £776,000, the staff time was estimated to be £150,000, and the price of technical support was £87,000.
EDM to reform EDMs
Most prominent among the growing band of sceptics is Conservative backbencher Graham Evans, who within months of entering Parliament last year took the inventive approach of tabling an EDM that called for EDMs to be reformed or abolished (PAN, Aug 10). Parliamentary secretaries thanked him, and 25 MPs signed EDM 432.
However, public affairs professionals may not have been so thankful, with Evans noting the role they play in promoting the avalanche of EDMs. Evans explains his thinking to Public Affairs News: “I joined politics to be a serious politician. An EDM sounds like something you need to take notice of, but then you look at the content and you realise it’s just trivial nonsense. My EDM was semi tongue-in-cheek; we didn’t quite expect the kerfuffle it caused,” he says, recalling a week of media appearances. “However, in their 21st century there must be a better mechanism for backbenchers. We could limit the number of EDMs or pick – via the backbench business committee – the most relevant EDMs to debate.”
While Evans’ researcher, who helped draft last year’s EDM, describes a “racket – there are lazy public affairs people justifying their services to clients, lazy MPs who tell their constituents they have tabled an EDM, and lazy journalists who follow them”, Evans himself is keen to stress that he is not looking to pick a row with the public affairs industry. A former businessman, he recognises “the idea of needing to justify your existence to their clients. I don’t blame the public affairs people, but it’s a tactic and a ploy.”
‘Little to no value’
Other MPs have been prepared to speak out. Chris Heaton-Harris, another Conservative of the 2010 intake, told PAN: “I’m just one of a growing number of MPs who feel that EDMs have little to no value in modern politics. There are so many of them now that it would take hours just to read the ones tabled in the last month. They also seem to have become the lazy lobbyist’s tool of choice; but I really don’t think that getting a few names of MPs on a piece of paper supporting something a client does is worth someone’s retainer.”
Enfield’s Tory MP Nick De Bois is of a similar mindset: “As a rule I do not sign EDMs unless they relate to a specific issue unique to Enfield. I feel that EDMs are over-used and therefore their impact minimal. Their cost is a burden on the taxpayer I do not support.”
Meanwhile back in July, Mark Menzies, also a Tory MP of the 2010 intake, told MPs that EDMs were “abused by outside interests and lobbyists, at considerable cost to the taxpayer and to Members’ time”. David Heath, the Lib Dem deputy leader of the House, told him that the matter “would be considered”.
EDMs continue to be tabled at a furious pace, but Labour MP Natascha Engel, who is chairman of the backbench business committee, believes their role in Parliament is shifting. Engel, who admits that she “really loathed EDMs”, points to the government’s plan for e-petitions, whereby 100,000 signatures would trigger a Commons debate, and her own committee’s insistence that a proposed subject for debate demonstrate significant parliamentary backing. “We ask for MPs to show the avenues of support they have pursued, and EDMs are part of that. Would we consider a threshold of signatures? That would be counter-productive, but if you can only get one signature then clearly that gives a good indication.”
And last month, when International Women’s Day was debated in the Commons, the names of the MPs who tabled the debate matched those on an EDM first presented to Engel’s committee – which was established last year – on the subject. This was a parliamentary first, but if it is an example of the power of EDMs, Engel’s feeling is that e-petitions will eventually succeed them.
EDM advocates
For now, however, EDMs do retain a large body of support. Chief among the Parliamentary defenders is Lib Dem MP Bob Russell, who saw 108 MPs sign his 2008 EDM calling for Gurkhas to have a legal right to live in the UK, and 207 MPs back his 2007 EDM supporting the Royal British Legion’s military covenant campaign. The former was an early marker for a debate that would lead to legislative change, while the latter, says Russell, “drew attention to the campaign, which is now being looked at in Parliament”.
In response to Evans’ EDM, Russell says: “It is wrong for MPs to start dictating what they want to inflict on others. If they don’t want to get involved then that’s their choice. We must not allow anyone to decide what is frivolous and what is serious.”
John McDonnell, who is the top EDM-signer so far in this Parliament, adds his support: “EDMs allow MPs to put a marker down on an issue, sending a message to government and also letting people know that there is an issue to be addressed and where you stand on it. They are often just one element of a campaign.”
‘Valuable engagement tool’
Public affairs professionals also believe that EDMs have merit. David Cowdrey, campaign manager at Guide Dogs, is a believer. “They are a really valuable engagement tool,” he tells PAN. “They raise an issue, get debate going, and act as a barometer of support with the House. They are a way for MPs to express opinions without having to toe the party line. Of course they shouldn’t be used on their own – but they are part of the political lobbying process.”
Cowdrey’s case is supported by Margaret Ounsley, head of public affairs at the World Wildlife Federation, who describes EDMs as a good way to “hold MPs’ feet to the fire”. In 2007-2008, 255 MPs supported an EDM that said ‘developed countries may have to reduce their emissions by up to 80 per cent’, and Ounsley believes the EDM helped the emissions target to become law. “With more than 80 or 90 signatures then you have something which is indicative. There’s not really another way of doing it.”
But are some lobbyists guilty of a lazy use of EDMs? “If they do, and their clients are daft enough, then more fool them,” Ounsley replies.
Chris Butler, former Tory MP and now director at the agency Butler Kelly, says: “EDMs can still play a role in influencing parliamentary opinion. The whips look quite closely at them, and if an EDM has cross-party support then it can gain momentum. They are a good way of gauging where your supporters are.”
However, he admits that he has noticed how a large number of the 2010 intake are refusing to sign EDMs: “If that trend continues, then they will begin to wither on the vine – they may have a limited lifespan.”
‘Verging on the meaningless’
Dave McCullough of Insight Public Affairs has also noted how many new MPs are refusing to sign EDMs, and suggests reform is overdue: “There are so many now that they are verging on the meaningless. Perhaps the minimum number of signatures required to table an EDM could be increased? At the moment it’s only one, but maybe this could be raised to 30 or 50?”
McCullough admits that some organisations believe EDMs are the “be all and end all”, but he insists that “most lobbyists advise their clients that there are better ways to spend their time and money.”
As for the band of non-signing MPs, he issues this warning: “It’s easy to say no to a lobbyist, but I wonder how they will be able to get away with this if a particularly popular local campaign gets under way with an accompanying EDM?”
Back in Parliament, Graham Evans has experienced this problem. The most popular EDM in this Parliament is EDM 210, which calls for support for community pubs. At the time of going to press, 272 MPs have signed. Evans is not among them, and at a recent constituency event he was berated by a representative of Camra (the Campaign for Real Ale) for refusing to.
“Of course I back their campaign, but I don’t need to sign an EDM to say I do,” Evans argues. But for now, the evidence suggests that many people believe he does.
It may often be mere parliamentary graffiti, but the writing is not quite yet on the wall for the EDM.
EVANS' EDM LAST YEAR - an EDM to shake up EDMs
Conservative MP Graham Evans tabled this EDM on 7 July 2010:
‘That this House regrets the continuing decline in importance of Early-Day Motions, which have become a campaign tool for external organisations; notes the role of public affairs professionals in drafting Early-Day Motions and encouraging members of the organisations they represent to send pro forma emails and postcards to hon. Members; further notes the huge volume of correspondence that this generates and the consequent office and postage costs incurred; believes that the organisations involved derive little benefit from Early-Day Motions, which very rarely have any influence on policy; further believes that public affairs professionals are aware of the ineffectiveness of Early-Day Motions, but continue to use them to attempt to justify their services; questions the value for money to the taxpayer of Early-Day Motions of whatever origin; and calls for the system of Early-Day Motions to be reformed or abolished.'
This article first appeared in our sister publication Public Affairs News.
Article Comments
Some lazy lobbyists do see EDMs as a good way of appeasing clients. When I worked for an MP I used to tell young lobbyists that the main way they could use them was to identify MPs interested in their particular issue, then use them to target more precisely. However, the constituents who are members of pressure groups are asked to get their MPs to sign EDMs, and EDM forms are passed around bars, so other MPs sign them to show friendship. Then, when an MP doesn't raise the issue further in Parliament, constituents ask why they signed the EDM, if they weren't interested in it, and they don't have a sensible answer. MPs I worked for who never signed EDMs saved us a whole lot of trouble, so on the whole it's best to get rid of them.
Vivienne Windle
14th Apr 2011 at 11:22 am
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.