Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Peter Bone (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 6 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on Sittings of the House.


Sittings of the House

Indeed; I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. Let me address this issue in a little depth. It has not been sprung on the Government. They proposed this change in the Standing Orders—the motion before us—on 23 November. A number of hon. Members, including me, have outlined the problem that the motion causes. On 26 November, I raised the matter in business questions, pointing out that on that very day the ballot for private Members' Bills was taking place, although nobody knew what dates had been allocated, and that the number of days allocated was set to decrease from 13 to eight. I argued that, in effect, the number had decreased to six because some of the dates that the Government had chosen were so late that clearly the general election would be upon us before they were reached. On 10 December, the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is in his place, brought up the issue in business questions when he asked why we were not having a debate on it. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who speaks for the Liberals on business of the House matters and who is also in his place, has also raised this question. He has also raised the issue of the Wright Committee report, which has a number of things to say about the allocation of time for private Members' Bills. I might touch on that issue later, if I have time to do so. At the same business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) brought that matter to the House's attention. I must pass on his apologies for not being here today. He would like to be participating in this debate, but the Government have clearly organised the business so that this debate is occurring at the exact time when he is leading a debate on immigration in Westminster Hall. I hope that he will have an opportunity to participate in this debate later. I have also raised a couple of points of order on this issue; on 16 December, I pointed out that with the exception of that in respect of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, the Second Reading dates that were announced were not confirmed. I asked how Members were to know that they would be able to debate their private Members' business on the given day. I also took the opportunity—there seemed to be no other way of bringing this to the House's attention in any form of debate—to raise the matter on the Adjournment debate on 16 December. I was hoping that that would provide the Deputy Leader of the House with the chance to argue the Government's case on this matter, but again they did not take the opportunity to make a defence of the reason for their cutting down the voice of Back Benchers. Today, when they had an opportunity to comment on it at the beginning of this debate all we heard was "I beg to move". The situation is ludicrous. There is no defence for it and the Government should be ashamed. They should withdraw their motion, but I doubt whether they will do so. Some people must be wondering whether I have some hidden motive, whether I am secretly hoping to get a Bill through or whether I am down the list on the ballot—I am not in the top 20. They might be wondering whether this is a political thing and whether the Tory party wants to get something through. That is hardly the case because only three of the first 12 private Members who came up in the ballot are Conservatives. There is nothing political about this; this is about Parliament having the opportunity to discuss private Members' Bills. I am attracted to one or two Bills. I am attracted to the anti-slavery Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and to his work on tackling human trafficking, but that is not the issue here; the issue here is the time available. I am also attracted to a couple of the proposals relating to the Lisbon treaty. That leads on nicely to why we must have ample time for debate. There are two reasons to introduce a private Member's Bill. The first is that a Member wishes to change the law. There have been numerous cases where worthy causes have been taken up and put on the statute book, but that can be done only when time is available. Time needs to be available for Second Reading, for the Committee stage and for Third Reading. I am afraid that if this motion is passed today, nobody will get any of their Bills on to the statute book.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c215-7 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Private members' bills
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk