HC Deb 14 December 1998 vol 322 cc601-2
33. Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester)

If she will provide more time during the Session to enable private Members' Bills to be proceeded with. [62162]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)

The Standing Orders now provide for private Members' Bills to be taken on 13 Fridays each Session. The Modernisation Committee may consider that issue and make other recommendations.

Mr. Russell

Does the right hon. Lady agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House are angered and disappointed by the lack of time provided for private Members' Bills—serious Bills which often have all-party support, but which do not have the opportunity to become law? Does she agree that the system should be simplified, so that more private Members' Bills can become law?

Mrs. Beckett

With respect, I do not agree that there is widespread anger at the amount of time available. However, I strongly agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House are angry about the way in which the procedures available to Back Benchers were handled in the last Session, and about what many hon. Members regard as entirely unjustified and deliberate obstruction of perfectly reasonable legislation by people who seem to think that they are here to play games.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

One way to ensure more time for private Members' Bills would be to give Wednesday morning sittings to that purpose, so that, instead of Adjournment debates, there could be Second Readings and further proceedings on private Members' Bills on Wednesday mornings. That would allow all hon. Members to play an active part in proceedings on such Bills, which often is not the case when the Bills are considered on Fridays.

Mrs. Beckett

All I can say is that there is always a question of what should be the balance between time for private Members' Bills and time for other business of the House, including scrutiny. The balance is a delicate one. In the last Parliament an average of about 17 private Members' Bills were passed in each Session—a not insignificant amount of legislation. However, if we are not able to deliver that amount, people ask questions about our existing procedures.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the long-established private Members' Bill procedure—working admirably as it does—provides protection for the public from a plethora of private Members' Bills, which are often promoted by narrow single-interest groups?

Mrs. Beckett

I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has a valid point: there are those who are concerned about the impact of a great mass of legislation. However, many people outside the House and many hon. Members on both sides within the House, do not believe that the protection of the public was secured by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and one of his hon. Friends objected to almost every private Members' Bill that was introduced, including the Fireworks Bill, which was on the brink of passing into law. Their actions then did not protect the public or enhance public safety and many hon. Members regard what they did as a frivolous misuse of our procedures.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

Does the right hon. Lady accept that, now that there are so many non-sitting Fridays, it is nonsense to pretend that those few Fridays on which the House sits are not proper parliamentary days? Does she also accept that Wednesday morning would not be a good time to take private Members' Bills, not least because many hon. Members value their present format?

Mrs. Beckett

I accept that many hon. Members value the present format of Wednesday mornings. However, if right hon. and hon. Members continue, on what appear to be frivolous grounds, to oppose private Members' Bills that command wide support in the House, that will lead to all sorts of questions being raised, which could impede the smooth working of the House. I hope that that will be borne in mind.