STANDING ORDER No. 5 (Hansard, 31 October 1968)

§ Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)
Yesterday, we had much talk on the question of the participation of back-bench Members in the work of the House. It was said by the Prime Minister that two extra days would be allocated for private Members' legislation. I submit that it is a waste of time allocating time for legislation for Private Members' Bills under the present rules and procedure of this House. I would point out to hon. Members that it is possible for a small group of opponents to filibuster against a Private Member's Bill and prevent its coming into law.
Let me give an example of what happened in regard to the Sunday Entertainments Bill. Last Session, it passed through the other place with a huge 181 majority and it obtained a Second Reading in this House—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot hold an inquest on a Private Member's Bill which went through the House last Session. We are deciding whether the Motion should be agreed to. The hon. Member must speak for or against it.

§ Mr. Parker
I suggest that the present rules should be amended because of what happened last Session in respect of the Bill to which I was referring as an example—

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Member, but the only amendments that we can discuss are those in the Motion which we have before us.

§ Mr. Parker
I am opposing the time allocated to Private Members' Bills on the ground that it a waste of time. The kind of filibustering which occurred last Session in relation to the Bill to which I have referred shows that it is quite impossible for any group of Members who want to get a Bill through the House to do so if a small group of Members are determined to torpedo it.
Another example of these tactics was illustrated by what happened to the Divorce Law Reform Bill. Last Session, it got through its Committee stage and the Government were prepared to offer time in this House, but there was no time in the other place. These two important Bills, which had a large measure of support among Members in this House, made no progress last Session. If they are to make progress this Session, either hon. Members will have to win places in the Ballot to introduce them or they will have to be introduced in the other place, and the Government will have to be asked to find time for them to go through their various stages in this House.
In any case, it will mean that these two Bills, which have had complete Committee stages in this House—and one of which has been largely through its Report stage—will have to be reintroduced and they will have to go through all their stages once more. This means that many hon. Members who are interested in them will have to waste their time going over the same arguments and the same points again and again.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. All this may or may not be true, but we are discussing a specific amendment to a Standing Order.

§ Mr. Parker
I am opposing the Motion because I suggest that until alterations are made in the rules of the House it is pointless to introduce Private Members' Bills. I suggest that, first, we need a change in the rules so that only 40 Members are needed to apply the closure in respect of Private Members' Bills. Unless we have a smaller figure than the present 100, we have no chance of getting such Bills through against the wishes of a small group. The Sunday Entertainments Bill failed to get a Closure on Report by 72 votes to 28.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member must listen to Mr. Speaker. We are seeking to reform the procedure in respect of time given to Private Members' Bills and Private Members' Motions by allocating certain days for each. We cannot discuss the reform of the whole Private Members' Bill procedure on this Motion. The hon. Member must find some other occasion to do that.

§ Mr. Parker
Unless changes are made in respect of the procedure on Private Members' Bills, it is pointless to provide time for them. I point out to you and to the House, Mr. Speaker, that until we make some such changes it is not worth while Members bringing such Bills forward. Therefore, I oppose to Motion.