Ten-Minute Bills (Hansard, 18 January 1988)

§ 29. Mr. Hanley
To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will table a motion for the appointment of a Procedure Committee to consider moving the allotted time for the introduction of ten-minute rule Bills to the end of a day's business; and if he will make a statement.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)
No, Sir, but consideration of any such specific proposal would be within the remit of a Procedure Committee with general terms of reference.
The ten-minute rule Bill procedure is an important way whereby a Back Bencher can draw the attention of the House to a matter to which he attaches particular importance. From this point of view, transferring the procedure to the end of business would rob it of some of its value.

§ Mr. Hanley
Does my right hon. Friend agree that public business at the start of our proceedings is too often delayed by the over-indulgence of hon. Member's raising bogus points of order? Would it not be more appropriate to have it just before the Adjournment debate, as was done during the Session of 1966–67?

§ Mr. Wakeham
The question of points of order is a slightly different matter, and it is not one for me. I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the present timing of ten-minute Bills. However, it is something that the Procedure Committee could look at.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, produced a report before the summer recess that 668 dealt with all these issues in detail and made a number of recommendations? Is it not true that the reason why that report was not brought before the House was that the Leader of the House was worried that if the Protection of Official Information Bill that we debated last Friday had gone through, the proposals in our report, if carried by the House, would have meant that the House would have had more time on Report to deal with amendments to the Bill and that that would have secured its passage? Now that that Bill is out of the way, why does the right hon. Gentleman not bring that report forward this week—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Does this question have anything to do with ten-minute Bills?

§ Mr. Tony Banks
My hon. Friend took 10 minutes to ask it.

§ Mr. Wakeham
The hon. Gentleman is chasing a hare —this matter has little to do with ten-minute Bills. With regard to Procedure Committee reports, I have reported to the House that I have proposals as to how best to deal with these matters. I am having discussions with the usual channels and I hope to make progress soon.

§ Dr. Glyn
When the Procedure Committee sits, will my right hon. Friend ask it to consider recommending the reintroduction of the 10-minute limit on speeches? As he knows, in 1979 and 1984 the House agreed to limit speeches to 10 minutes—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The subject is ten-minute Bills rather than speeches. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about 10-minute speeches.

§ Mr. Wakeham
This is certainly a matter to which we attach importance, and we want to get on with it as soon as possible.