House of Commons
Procedure Committee
Private Members’ bills
Second Report of Session 2013–14
Volume III
Additional written evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published
28 November 2012, 16 and 30 January and 27 February 2013
Published on 2 September 2013
by authority of the House of Commons
London: The Stationery Office Limited
Procedure Committee
The Procedure Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider
the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business, and
to make recommendations.
Current membership
Mr Charles Walker MP (Conservative, Broxbourne) (Chair)
Jenny Chapman MP (Labour, Darlington)
Nic Dakin MP (Labour, Scunthorpe)
Thomas Docherty MP (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)
Sir Roger Gale MP (Conservative, North Thanet)
Helen Goodman MP (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
Mr James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Tom Greatrex MP (Lab/Co-op, Rutherglen and Hamilton West)
John Hemming MP (Liberal Democrat, Birmingham Yardley)
Mr David Nuttall MP (Conservative, Bury North)
Jacob Rees-Mogg MP (Conservative, North East Somerset)
Martin Vickers MP (Conservative, Cleethorpes)
The following Members were also members of the Committee during the
Parliament:
Rt Hon Greg Knight MP (Conservative, Yorkshire East) (Chair until 6 September
2012)
Karen Bradley MP (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)
Andrew Percy MP (Conservative, Brigg and Goole)
Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)
Angela Smith MP (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge)
Sir Peter Soulsby MP (Labour, Leicester South)
Mike Wood MP (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Powers
The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing
Orders, principally in SO No 147. These are available on the Internet via
www.parliament.uk.
Publications
The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery
Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press
notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/proccom.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Huw Yardley (Clerk), Margaret McKinnon
(Second Clerk) and Jim Camp (Committee Assistant).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Procedure
Committee, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The
telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3318; the Committee’s email
address is [email protected].
List of additional written evidence
1
Caroline Lucas MP
Ev w1
2
Professor Michael Rush, Emeritus Professor of Politics, University of Exeter
Ev w1
3
Professor Michael Rush (supplementary evidence)
Ev w5
4
Lighter Later Campaign
Ev w7
5
Dr Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus, Policy Studies Institute
Ev w8
6
R Kennett
Ev w8
7
Mrs Anita Broad
Ev w9
8
Which?
Ev w9
9
Joan Walley MP
Ev w15
10
Steve Brine MP
Ev w15
11
Dr Julian Huppert MP
Ev w15
12
Graeme Robertson
Ev w17
13
Sport and Recreation Alliance
Ev w17
14
Anne Vasey
Ev w19
15
Jeremy Lefroy MP
Ev w19
16
Paola Collins
Ev w19
17
Joy Miller
Ev w19
18
Mark Bracey
Ev w19
19
Campaign for Better Hospital Food
Ev w20
20
Parliament First APPG
Ev w21
21
Natascha Engel MP, Chair of the Backbench Business Committee
Ev w22
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w1
Written evidence
Written evidence submitted by Caroline Lucas MP (P 14, 2012–13)
Further to your letter of 24 May, you will know that I have sent my apologies for the seminar on your
inquiry into Private Members’ Bills to be held on 27 June. However I did want to send some brief written
comments to the Committee, as follows and which I hope are useful.
As the Committee knows, currently Private Members’ Bills (PMBs) are held on Fridays, the day when most
MPs go back for meetings in their constituencies. For an opposed Private Members’ Bill to go through on
Second Reading, 100 Members must be in the House to support it. Given the constituency commitments of
MPs, there are rarely 100 MPs in Westminster on a Friday. MPs that have stayed for a PMB on a Friday often
start to head back to their constituencies for meetings later in the day, so the longer the debate goes on, the
slimmer the chances of enough MPs remaining to vote it through. The current system allows backbenchers to
deliberately waste the time allotted for debate on a Private Members’ Bill in order to delay it, so that the vote
takes place when there are likely to be fewer Members to support it.
Ideally, I would like to see the sitting hours changed and PMBs moved to a midweek slot where more
members can attend. In the meantime, their status and effectiveness could be improved by providing deferred
divisions to facilitate wider participation by Members and to prevent “talking out” or “filibustering” by
Members who have a general opposition to almost any private members legislation.
The Wright Committee stated that “merely procedural devices” should not be able to obstruct Private
Members’ Bills. I strongly agree—it should be the real issues that affect the outcome of a Bill. Filibustering is
an insult to other Members who want to seriously debate a Bill, to the Speaker and, most importantly, to the
electorate, who do not want to pay to run a debating Chamber that is being mocked by its participants.
Deferred divisions would be one practical way that we can consign the “art” of filibustering to history.
It would also be helpful for there to be consideration of whether more time should be scheduled for PMBs
in order to allow more backbenchers to make use of this mechanism—after all it is one of the few mechanisms
open to backbenchers to directly get legislation.
22 June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Professor Michael Rush, Emeritus Professor of Politics,
University of Exeter (P 50, 2012–13)
Introduction
1. Members of Parliament can engage in a range of parliamentary activities, the initiation of Private
Members’ Bills (PMBs) being one. However, these activities are subject to varying degrees of constraint, some
procedural, others from the number of Members wishing to participate, yet others from the expectations of
party, and PMBs are no exception. The initiation of Ballot Bills is constrained the most and that of Presentation
Bills the least, with ten minute Rule Bills somewhere in between. Of course, most PMBs, including those
initiated in the House of Lords fail to complete their passage, but the success rates of PMBs introduced under
different procedures varies markedly:
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Ev w2 Procedure Committee: Evidence
Figure 1
SUCCESS RATES OF PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILLS, 1983–2010
100
90
80
70
60
%
50
40
34.6
30.1
30
20
10.4
10
5.3
0.9
0
Ballot
Presentation
Ten minute rule House of Lords
Total
Procedure
Source: House of Commons Information Office, Factsheet L2: Private Members’ Bill Procedure, revised June
2010, Appendix A.
2. The data shown in Figure 1 cover 27 sessions over which only one in ten PMBs received the royal assent,
the largest number being 22 in 1996–97, while in the two most recent full sessions the numbers were five in
2008–09 and six in 2010–12, despite the latter being the longest session since at least 1832. Why, then, do
Members spend time and effort introducing and seeking the passage of PMBs? Successfully piloting a bill
through Parliament can, no doubt, provide great personal satisfaction, especially on a matter about which the
Member concerned feels strongly, and this may some way to explaining why the overwhelming majority of
backbench MPs enter the ballot. However, given their very low success rates, it does little to explain the
initiation of Presentation Bills and even less Ten Minute Rule Bills.
Backbench Involvement with PMBs
3. Both Presentation and Ten Minute Rule Bills provide Members with the opportunity to publicise issues
they feel strongly about, whether from a personal, constituency or party viewpoint, in the particular form of a
specific legislative proposal. As such, PMBs may be part of a wider campaign to change the law or draw the
attention of the government or, indeed the Member’s party, to an issue or point of view. Ten Minute Rule Bills
in particular provide for the matter to be debated briefly on the floor of the House at a prime time of the
parliamentary day, while a small number of Presentation Bills also end up being debated and those that are
printed may receive some media or pressure group attention. Nonetheless, the rewards are small, yet a
significant proportion of backbench MPs engage in the limited opportunities provided by PMBs.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w3
Figure 2
SINGLE-PARTY AND CROSS-PARTY SUPPORT FOR PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILLS, 2008–09 AND
2010–12
Source: House of Commons Information Office, Factsheet L2: Private Members’ Bill Procedure, revised June
2010, Appendix A.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Ev w4 Procedure Committee: Evidence
4. Ballot Bills vary as to whether they have supporters drawn from a single party or whether they have
cross-party support, but Presentation Bills are much more likely to be presented and supported by a single
party, whereas Ten Minute Rule Bills are more likely to have cross-party support. Moreover, many more
Presentation Bills are presented by the same Member with the same supporters. In 2008–09, for example, three
Members, with more or less the same supporters drawn from their respective parties, were responsible for
52.5% of the Presentation Bills introduced, and the comparable figure for 2010–12 was 80.5%.1 However,
backbench involvement in presenting or supporting Ten Minute Rule Bills is much greater than that for
Presentation Bills, as Figure 3 shows:
Figure 3
PROPORTION OF BACKBENCH INVOLVED IN THE SUPPORT OF PRESENTATION AND TEN
MINUTE RULE BILLS, 2008–09 AND 2010–12
Source: House of Commons, Votes and Proceedings, 2008–09 and 2010–12.
Conclusions
5. If Ballot Bills are retained as a means of backbench involvement, the principal problem is finding
procedural mechanisms to allow Parliament and the House of Commons in particular to reach a decision on
the merits of those bills that pass their second reading. This inevitably involves timetabling, probably in
conjunction with other procedural devices, such as dedicated committees or treating opposed and unopposed
bills differently.
6. The data in Figure 3 would suggest that a majority of Members value Ten Minute Rule Bills but only a
minority (though arguably a significant one) value Presentation Bills. The time allocated for Ten Minute Rule
Bills could be reallocated to existing Private Members’ time, while the power to table Presentation Bills could
simply be abolished. However, this would remove the ability of backbench Members to initiate specific
legislative proposals other than through the lottery of the Ballot. The Ten Minute Rule procedure guarantees
at a minimum a brief consideration of a backbench legislative initiative and Presentation Bills are the legislative
equivalent of Early Day Motions, in both cases allowing one or more Members to make or support a specific
legislative proposal. The data presented in this evidence say nothing about the views of Members themselves;
their views would be of interest.
November 2012
1
House of Commons, Votes and Proceedings, 2008–09 and 2010–12.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w5
Supplementary written evidence submitted by Professor Michael Rush, University of Exeter
(P 77, 2012–13)
Introduction
1. I am sorry I was unable to attend the Committee’s session on 28 November, but travel difficulties resulting
from flooding prevented me from doing so. However, I have read the oral evidence presented by Lord Norton of
Louth and Dr Ruth Fox with much interest and would like to offer the Committee additional written evidence.
2. The Committee’s enquiry poses two basic questions: first, whether Private Members’ Bills (PMBs) serve
a useful purpose; and second, if they do, whether any procedural changes could be usefully made.
The Purpose of PMBs
3. I agree with Lord Norton that, in addition to making some useful changes in the law, PMBs can play an
equally useful role in contributing to the policy agenda. For that reason I also agree that the government should
not have a monopoly over the initiation of legislation. Some PMBs have made widely-welcomed changes in
the law, especially on matters governments and parties regard as matters of conscience; others have made
limited but useful changes dealing with anomalies or “where the shoe pinches” issues. In both cases some of
these changes occurred sooner than otherwise would have been the case; some may not have taken place at all.
4. The fact that only one in ten PMBs become law needs to be offset against the proportion of backbench
Members who initiate and support them, as my earlier evidence to the Committee shows. This is particularly
the case with Ten Minute Rule Bills: in the 2008–09 and 2010–12 sessions 65.9 and 81.6% of backbench
Members respectively initiated or supported Ten Minute Rule Bills; the proportions for Presentation Bills were
26.7 and 16.1%.2 Moreover, data covering the period 1950 to the present show a clear upward trend in the
number of Ten Minute Rule and Presentation Bills, especially the former, as Figure 1 shows:
Figure 1
PRESENTATION AND 10-MINUTE RULE BILLS PER SITTING DAY, 1950–2010
Sources: David Marsh and Melvyn Read, Private Members’ Bills, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1988, Table 1.3 and House of Commons Information Office, Factsheet L2: Private Members’ Bill Procedure,
revised June 2010, Appendix A.
Note: The data for 2010–12 cover a single session, of course, but short of a dramatic change in Members’ use
of PMBs the upward trend is likely to continue.
5. Much of the parliamentary activity of backbench MPs is reactive rather than proactive, but PMBs allow
them to make specific proposals in legislative form rather than less directly though other procedures. Were
PMBs to be abolished, the time spent by the House could, of course, be reallocated, so that there would be no
diminution of private Members’ time. However, their abolition, or the restricting of them to ballot bills, would
diminish backbench opportunities to engage directly in the initiation of legislation. Adopting the Scottish
Parliament procedure of limiting the number of bills a Member could initiate would be similarly restrictive. The
long term trend from the 1960s has been to increase not reduce the opportunities for backbench involvement in
the work of the House.
2
See Figure 3 in evidence presented for 28 November.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Ev w6 Procedure Committee: Evidence
Procedural Change
6. Given the range of PMBs, adopting exactly the same procedure for all—a “one-size-fits-all”—is not
necessarily the best approach. Some PMBs attract strong support and strong opposition, others no opposition
in principle, though perhaps concern about the detail, and distinguishing between opposed and unopposed bills,
allowing more time for some, less for others may be a way forward. Notwithstanding such a distinction,
allowing the House to come to a decision should be the principal aim of any procedural changes and that
means some form of timetabling. Whether some experimentation would help is worth considering.
7. A similar point can be made about consultation: not all government bills are treated the same way—some
are the subject of pre-legislative consultation, some start life as draft bills, but requiring all PMBs (or even the
first ten in the ballot) to be subject to public consultation would seem unnecessarily inflexible. Those interested
in or concerned about a particular bill can lobby MPs before second reading if they object to a bill or at its
later stages, if their concern is with the detail. This is facilitated by existing practice of publishing the details
and stages of PMBs on the Parliament website. In addition, consideration could be given to allowing the public
bill committees dealing with a bill to hold one or more evidence sessions or invite written evidence in
appropriate cases. Again, some experimentation might clarify matters.
8. Who should decide? If some form of timetabling were introduced, the obvious candidate for dealing with
it would be the Backbench Business Committee. However, making the Business Committee responsible for
deciding the merits of PMBs would almost certainly make it the lobbying target of both Members and pressure
groups, whereas adopting a more mechanistic approach, based on whether a bill is opposed or not or for which
support is manifestly strong, might be preferable. No doubt current members of the Business Committee will
have their views on this. Some of the same considerations would apply to having a dedicated committee to
consider the merits of PMBs or, following Canadian practice, referring those that have received a second
reading to the appropriate departmental select committee.
9. The initial decision on the debating priority might therefore be remain with a ballot, as is again the case
in Canada, provided there is some means of ensuring that Members can come to a decision on each stage of a
bill, thereby preventing filibustering to delay a bill or the progress of a bill later in the queue.
Conclusions
10. Ten Minute Rule Bills and Presentation Bills provide the opportunity for backbench Members to take a
legislative initiative at little or no cost to the House or the Members concerned. Many serve a wider purpose
of contributing to the policy agenda, either by getting an issue onto the agenda or moving it up the agenda.
Furthermore, they have become increasingly popular with Members—Ten Minute Rule Bills especially—and
reducing backbench opportunities by abolishing or restricting them would be against a long term trend
stretching back to the 1960s.
11. Despite its randomness, the ballot retains the merit of simplicity. Devising a means of assessing the
relative merits of bills by committee would involve creating one or more additional committees or using the
existing departmental select committees and shift lobbying efforts from Members to committees, placing an
additional burden on the committee members involved.
12. The main aim of any procedural changes should be to enable the House to make decisions on PMBs on
their merits, subject to their position in the ballot and those of other PMBs in the queue. Some form of
timetabling should be introduced for PMBs and this should be the responsibility of the Backbench Business
Committee.
A Note in Practice in the Canadian House of Commons
1. Most PMBs are introduced in the House of Commons; only a few start life in the Senate.
2. A Member wishing to introduce a PMB must consult the Parliament’s Law Clerk and Parliamentary
Counsel, who assists in drafting the bill and must certify that it complies with legislative conventions.
3. Members must give 48 hours’ notice of introducing a bill and name the committee to which it will be
referred should it pass its second reading. No debate is allowed on a bill’s introduction and no vote taken, but
the sponsoring Member may make a brief statement on the bill’s purpose. At this point, up to 20 other Members
may express their support for the bill by “seconding” it in writing.
4. The order in which bills are taken after first reading is determined by a ballot of all backbench Members,
which establishes an Order of Precedence. However, the ballot applies not only to bills but to other Private
Members’ business as well, that is to motions for debates and for the production of papers. With which bills
must therefore compete.
5. The second reading of a PMB is limited to a maximum of two hours3 and speeches are subject to timelimits—the sponsor of the bill to 15 minutes, plus 5 minutes for questions and comments, and 5 minutes to
conclude the debate; other Members are subject to a maximum of 10 minutes. If the bill passes its second
3
However, because Private Members’ business is limited to one hour a day, a bill whose second reading has not been completed
within that time moves to the bottom of the Order of Precedence, gradually moving up in order to qualify for further debate.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w7
reading, it is referred to the standing committee named by the sponsoring Member when introducing the bill.4
If the bill completes its committee, report and third reading stages, it then goes to the Senate. Debates on report
and third reading are subject to the same rules as the second reading.
6. Any bill that has not completed all its stages by the end of the parliamentary session is automatically
carried over to the next session.
7. Although the process for dealing with PMBs in the Canadian House of Commons is relatively
straightforward—no distinction is drawn between different types of bill and all PMBs are initiated in the same
way, it is a long drawn-out process and few PMBs actually become law, as Table 1 below shows:
Table 1
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS AND
NUMBER AND PROPORTION RECEIVING THE ROYAL ASSENT, 1997–2011
Parliament
PMBs introduced—n
1997–2000
2001–04
2004–05
2006–08
2008–11
632
880
265
615
769
(2
(3
(1
(2
(3
Receiving royal assent—n (%)
sessions)
sessions)
session)
sessions)
sessions)
6
7
4
10
4
(1.0)
(0.8)
(1.5)
(1.6)
(0.5)
Source: www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/compilations/HouseOfCommons/legislation/privatememberspublicbills.aspx
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by the Lighter Later Campaign (P 67, 2012–13)
We, 10:10, ran the Lighter Later campaign from March 2010 until June 2012. Lighter Later represented a
nationwide coalition of 42,000 individuals and over 90 organisations advocating a shift to Single/Double
Summer Time (SDST) and supported the related Daylight Saving Bill, tabled by Rebecca Harris MP.
The Daylight Savings Bill fell at its third reading on 20 January 2012. Whilst the bill was only 6 pages long,
it attracted over 100 amendments tabled by a handful of MPs. Many were so ludicrous they weren’t considered
worthy of airtime—renaming the bill “Berlin Time Act” for instance. Out of the 100 tabled, only 28 made it
onto the list for discussion.
Over 140 MPs put off constituency business to be in the chamber to support the bill at its third reading.
Christopher Chope MP took up the whole first hour of “debate” almost singlehandedly. MPs were forced to
employ the rarely used Standing Order 29 (the “Golding Closure”) to move the debate on.
Even with a huge number of MPs in the house, the support both government and government, 90 national
organisations and strong public opinion polls, a couple of hostile MPs were able to run down the clock with
shameless timewasting tactics so the bill never went to a vote. The tricks they used to hold up the process—
many of which can only be described as “mucking about” in the noe lobby—were, frankly, embarrassing and
a blatant affront to the democratic process.
We carried out some analysis on the debate:
—
Of 160 MPs present, 70% of all words spoken were from 10 MPs.
—
The same 10 MPs consistently voted to extend the debate.
—
146 MPs consistently voted to progress the debate.
—
25% of all words spoken at the debate were by one MP, Christopher Chope, who consistently
voted to extend the debate.
Ironic that there was so much blatant timewasting in a debate about wasted time!
Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw summed up the situation well: “No Private Member’s Bill in memory has enjoyed
such strong all-party support and if this one can’t be given the chance of getting onto the statute book we
might as well scrap the whole system of Private Members’ Bills.”
Working to support the Daylight Saving Bill was our first experience of the Private Members’ Bill system.
As such we do not feel qualified to make any detailed recommendations to the committee, nevertheless it is
our strong view that the system is in need of drastic reform.
4
A major reform of the committee system of the Canadian House of Commons took place in the late 1960s and all bills
(government and Private Members’) were referred to specialised standing committees (equivalent to Westminster’s departmental
select committees) for their committee stage. There was, however, a short period between 1991 and 1994 when separate, nonspecialised legislative committees (equivalent to Westminster’s public bill committees, took the committee stage of bills.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Ev w8 Procedure Committee: Evidence
We would support moves to:
(a) Reform to the timings of PMBs. Tabling them exclusively on Fridays tears MPs away from
important constituency business.
(b) Address filibustering and timewasting. It is an insult to the electorate and MPs who want to
seriously debate the bill.
We appreciate the committee’s acknowledgement of the importance of this issue and look forward to reading
your conclusions.
Madeline Carroll
10:10, The Lighter Later campaign
10 January 2013
Written evidence submitted by Dr Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus, Policy Studies Institute
(P 68, 2012–13)
I am sending this email for the House of Commons Procedure Committee’s consideration. Its contents cover
my response to its request for comments on its Inquiry on aspects of Private Members’ bills. They are drawn
from my experience on Friday, 20 January 2012 when attending the Second Reading of Rebecca Harris’s PM
Daylight Saving Bill—her proposal for a three-year trial period during which the UK would advance its clocks
by one hour in both summer and winter.
The last period of the morning debate up to the time when proceedings had to be brought to a conclusion
was taken up by two MPs who “talked it out”. For some inexplicable reason—that is to a layman—the Speaker
did not intervene. As a result, not only were many MPs wishing to contribute to the debate prevented from
doing so, but no final vote could be taken enabling the PMB to proceed to its next stage.
To my mind, that represents a disturbing example of a faulty process in the democratic procedures involved
in Parliament reaching well informed decisions. I would assume that this is not be allowed in other aspects of
the parliamentary process. That leads me to want to question the status of a PMB. It would appear to allow
for any one or group of MPs to “talk out” any PMB which they opposed. In effect, it provides the opportunity
for a single MP to thwart the wishes of the majority of MPs. In earlier votes taken during the morning, it was
absolutely clear that the great majority supported Ms Harris’ bill—indeed by a very substantial majority!
I do hope that my concern will be seen to be wholly justified and that, as a consequence, the Procedure
Committee will recommend an appropriate change to this aspect of procedures governing PMBs.
January 2013
Written evidence submitted by R Kennett (P 69, 2012–13)
Time limits should be imposed on Private Members Bill.
The Daylight Saving Bill is an example of how a perfectly good Bill proceeded to the final stage in the
Commons after having been backed, debated, amended and voted in favour at all stages by cross party
members, including senior members, was finally hijacked by one member, This member, who was against the
Bill, deliberately talked for the sake of talking in order to waste time thus resulting in the Bill “running out
of time”.
This is not democracy where one person can “kill” a Bill in which a majority of the house have passed
in debate.
This aspect of the Private Members Bill procedure desperately needs reform.
I wrote to my MP at the time and have attached herewith that email letter.
R Kennett
Dear Nick Hurd,
Subject: Daylight Saving Bill 2010
I was pleased to learn that the government fully supported the second reading of the Bill and I trust that you
will continue with your backing of the Bill with the object of it passing into Law.
I remember the last trial in for daylight saving during the winter months in 1968 to 1971 and I found it most
agreeable and I could not understand why it was not accepted despite a majority of the UK population being
in favour.
With GMT+1 during the winter months daylight would be better aligned with the sleep pattern of the vast
majority of the UK population: this equates to a net saving in energy and of course carbon dioxide production.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w9
The above predictions have been confirmed by many university studies.
Studies also show that there would be a net drop in road accidents.
There are many more net advantages I could quote but will leave it to be aired during the coming debate.
Can I rely on your support?
20 December 2012
Written evidence submitted by Mrs Anita Broad (P 70, 2012–13)
Last year, and for the first time in my life, I was inspired by politics and the democratic process. I supported
the Lighter Later Campaign which put forward the idea of double summer-time. A Private Members bill was
heard. It had cross-party support, the backing of hundreds of sporting associations, travel and tourism
organisations and thousands of ordinary people.
My children took part in this campaign also. I explained the democratic process and, despite being teenagers,
they also wrote to our local MP and became involved in politics. I told them that if enough people wrote to
their Members of Parliament and it was supported by enough people the democratic process would see us right.
What I hadn’t realised however was that, legitimately, three “filibusters” would be allowed to talk out the
Private Members Bill. I realise this is legal, but like so many other things, it is not right. I had to explain to
my children why this bill had failed. I sounded ridiculous and they couldn’t believe it any more than I could.
On one hand, it was a complete waste of everyone’s time and money. But more importantly, I lost any shred
of faith I had left in our Parliamentary system. I doubt very much if my children will get involved ever again
either. Seems to me it was a lose/lose result in so many ways.
I sincerely hope “filibustering” and therefore the Members of Parliament who are well know for this practice
will be looked at and no longer accepted.
5 January 2013
Written evidence submitted by Which? (P 71, 2012–13)
1. What value do lobby groups such as Which? see in the private Members’ bill procedure? On what basis
do you approach Members who are successful in the ballot?
In our 55 year history, Which? has a long track record of promoting legislative change and has often used
the PMB procedure to achieve it. In the context of the consumer protection legislation passed in the 1970s, the
Times noted in 1980 “Which? can claim to have filled more pages of the statute book than any other pressure
group this century”. Most of this legislation was Government legislation such as the Consumer Credit Act
1974 but some of it began life as a PMB promoted by Which?. This began with the groundbreaking Unsolicited
Goods and Services Act 1971 originally promoted as a PMB by the late David Tench, then Legal Director of
Which?. Other examples of PMBs promoted by Which? include:
— the Administration of Justice Act 1985 which includes the provisions that broke solicitors’
monopoly of conveyancing first proposed in Labour MP Austin Mitchell’s PMB, the House
Buyers’ bill (another of David Tench’s bills);
— the Property Misdescriptions Act 19915 promoted by Conservative MP John Butcher and
eventually adopted by then DTI that made it an offence for estate agents to make false or
misleading statements when offering properties for sale;
— Conservative MP Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith’s Health Service Commissioners (Amendment)
Act in 2000 which closed the loophole preventing the Health Commissioner investigating health
professionals who had retired;
— Liberal Democrat MP Lorely Burt’s Financial Services (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts)
bill in 2011 that sought to tackle unfair bank charges. Though the bill was withdrawn, the
underlying issue that may yet form part of the Government’s Consumer Rights bill in 2013.
Some of these examples show that even an unsuccessful PMB can still be the first step in securing a change
in law subsequently brought in by the Government by its own legislation. This is why the statistics on the
number of PMBs that have successfully reached the statute book can be misleading and do not tell the whole
story.
As an example, take our experience in the current parliamentary session 2012–13. Which? promoted five
bills via the PMB ballot in May 2012.6 We approached all 20 MPs whose names were drawn in the ballot.
5
6
This Act is now due to be repealed as the Government has decided there is duplication with the Consumer Protection Regulations
2008 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120913/wmstext/120913m0001.htm
See Appendix 1
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Ev w10 Procedure Committee: Evidence
In summary, though just one of our bills was introduced, since then four of our five suggested bills have made
some headway, even though none are on course to become law in the form we presented them.
The bills, and their current status (December 2012), are:
—
The Price-Marking (Consumer Information) Bill. This bill was presented by Liberal Democrat
MP Jo Swinson who came 15th in the ballot. When she was appointed the BIS Consumer
Affairs Minister in September 2012, she became responsible for the policy area the bill sought
to change and therefore she had to withdraw the bill ahead of 2nd Reading on
2 November 2012. Nevertheless, the issue of supermarket unit pricing is now much more firmly
placed on the Government’s agenda and we are hopeful that some changes will be made to the
unit pricing legislation via secondary legislation in 2013 together with related work the OFT is
doing on supermarket special offers.
—
The Claims Management (Consumer Redress) bill. This bill would mean that consumers can
seek redress from the Legal Ombudsman against claims management companies. No MP in the
PMB ballot took this bill up so instead we made plans to promote the bill as a 10 minute rule
bill, in the House of Lords or as an amendment to a Government bill. Before these plans came
to fruition, after lobbying by a range of stakeholders including Which?, the Government
(Ministry of Justice) announced on 28 August 20127 that they would bring our bill into force
in 2013 by the necessary secondary legislation under the Legal Services Act 2007.
—
The Letting Agents (Redress) bill. No MP in the PMB ballot took this up so instead we made
plans to promote the bill as a 10 minute rule bill (which it is now planned will be presented by
a MP in April 2013). More recently, we have promoted an amendment to the Government’s
Enterprise bill which in effect is the same as the proposed PMB; this will be debated on
14 January 2013.8 We are confident the aims of this bill—to require letting agents to be
members of an approved complaints scheme and meet the same requirements as sales agents
under the Estate Agent Act 1979—will become law sooner or later. Our PMB is therefore a
means to this end.
—
The Energy (Simpler Tariffs) bill. No MP in the PMB ballot took this up but the issue underlying
the bill—simpler energy tariffs—has since become a major public and media issue, leading to
the Prime Minister’s pledge that energy firms will put customers on the cheapest available
tariff. We are now working directly with DECC on this.
—
The Junior ISA (Consumer Choice) bill. The bill’s aim is to enable consumers whose children
have a Child Trust Fund to transfer into a Junior ISA. No MP in the PMB ballot took this up
but we have continued to engage with the Treasury about it. We are considering whether to represent this bill next session.
In addition to the PMB ballot, we also work with individual MPs on other issues they or we are promoting
either through a 10 minute rule bill or as an amendment to Government legislation.
We also work with Peers, most recently with Lord Lester of Herne Hill on his proposed Defamation bill in
2010–11 which was instrumental in persuading the Government to present its own Defamation bill this session.
PMBs can of course begin life in the Lords and, for example, we are considering this option with the Letting
Agents (Redress) bill should it not proceed in the current parliamentary session, even though a Lords PMB
which has passed all its stages joins the back of the PMB queue in the Commons and so is very unlikely to be
reached for debate regardless of the merits of the bill.
2. Do you provide Members with bills that have already been drafted, or are there other ways in which you
seek to influence bills put forward by a Member?
For the PMB ballot our usual approach is to provide the MP with the suggested short and long title of the
bill and an indication of what existing law would need changing, together with a background to the issue and
some key questions they are likely to want answers to. An example of our approach—this year’s Letting
Agents (Redress) bill—is provided at Annex 2. Most of our PMBs are relatively simple and short and therefore
do not require significant advance drafting, or this drafting can be done in the period between 1st Reading and
2nd Reading. If any of our PMBs are part of a wider campaign of change or cover a broader and more
complicated area of legislative change then we may have drafted the bill in advance either using our in-house
legal team or using Parliamentary Counsel.
Another reason for our usual approach is that, given how difficult it is for a PMB to proceed due to the
shortage of time and procedural blockages, we are reluctant to expend resources unnecessarily until we have
greater certainty. Also, in the back of our minds, is the fact that the Government, if they accept the principle
of the bill, often insists on bringing forward its own proposals as Government legislation or, if they do accept
the PMB, they will seek to re-draft it using Government Parliamentary Counsel.
7
8
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-releases/moj/consumers-set-to-benefit-from-claims-management-crackdown
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2012–2013/0045/amend/su045-vc.htm
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w11
3. How does your organisation judge whether its involvement with a private Members’ bill has been
successful?
As noted above, success is not judged by whether the PMB becomes law, though that is our preferred
outcome. Success is judged by whether the issue underlying the bill is taken forward by whatever means. This
might be that it is implemented in full by Government legislation or just that the Government commits to
consult on the issue. Which? would of course prefer that our suggested PMBs were more easily able to become
law after suitable scrutiny. However the current procedures make this very difficult to achieve. As a
consequence, one of the last PMBs we successfully piloted all the way to the statute book was Conservative
MP Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith’s Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) bill in 2000 which closed the
loophole preventing the Health Commissioner investigating health professionals who had retired.
4. What is the private Members’ bill procedure for? Should it continue to be used as a vehicle for getting a
debate, or should it be used only for serious legislative propositions?
The PMB procedure is to enable MPs to promote specific and usually relatively small-scale legislative
change (though there are obvious exceptions to this, perhaps most notably the Abortion Act 1967). Which?
has, more recently, focused on limited and specific changes to the law, often an existing law, in a given area
that is likely to command cross party support and be relatively uncontroversial (at least party politically). We
also look for issues where the Government has itself indicated a lack of parliamentary time stops it from
legislating. We are aware that the PMB ballot is used by the Government to promote so called “hand out”
bills—bills that are in fact Government bills piloted to the statute book via a balloted PMB.
If a MP just wants to secure a debate there are other avenues for that to be achieved, primarily in Westminster
Hall. It may be that an issue begins life as a backbench debate before later becoming a PMB.
5. Is it right that backbenchers should be able to bring forward their own legislative propositions and see
them become law, or is the instigation of legislation properly the sole preserve of the duly elected
Government of the day?
We are surprised this question is asked because MPs are members of our national legislature. As well as
holding the Government to account and representing those who elected them, a member of a legislature must
pass law. We can see no reason why the right to initiate legislation should only be bestowed on the Government
of the day. It would be a huge backwards step for parliamentary sovereignty and for the ability of Parliament
to assert its independence from Government if the right to initiate legislation was removed from backbench
MPs. As shown above, PMBs can and do positively influence legislation that benefits the electorate.
6. Does the private Members’ bill process enable Bills to stand or fall on their merits? Is it rigorous enough
to afford bills sufficient scrutiny before they become law?
Under the current procedures, there is little prospect of any PMB becoming law without at least tacit
Government support. This means that even a bill with merit may fail as any PMB can be “talked out” or killed
by amendments if the Government does not like it, or if a single determined MP wishes to block the bill. In
our experience it is the Government whip who most often shouts “object” to block a bill’s passage to the
next stage.
If more time, preferably not on Fridays, was given to PMBs then more time would be available to ensure a
particular PMB genuinely stood or fell on its merits. At the moment, most PMBs are not considered at all and
even those given priority by the ballot usually fail simply because of the current procedures. Bills such as
those Which? promoted this session are generally less than five clauses long so full scrutiny could be achieved
in a relatively small amount of time.
It is also worth remembering that any bill that passes all the Commons Stages still must pass the House of
Lords’ stages too where it is acknowledged by many commentators (and it is our experience too) that legislative
scrutiny is often more detailed and comprehensive.
7. How far do the current procedures for private Members’ bills strike the right balance between ensuring
that proposals for legislation are adequately debated, and enabling the will of the House as to whether a bill
should proceed to prevail? What changes might improve that balance?
The current procedures do not ensure that PMBs are adequately debated as so little time is given to PMBs.
Those that do successfully receive a 2nd Reading may not even have time to return to the floor of the House
for Report Stage after Committee. Which? therefore believes that more time should be devoted to PMBs and
preferably not on Fridays. On the other hand, more debating time for PMBs does not necessarily mean greater
scrutiny as any additional time may just be used to “filibuster” so it is important that any additional time
devoted to PMBs is genuinely used to scrutinise them. Sometimes appropriate and necessary “scrutiny” is in
fact used as a proxy to block a bill that it is in fact well supported.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Ev w12 Procedure Committee: Evidence
8. Is the ballot the right way of determining which Members’ bills get priority for debating time? What is the
role of ten minute rule motions and presentation bills? Should these procedures remain in their current form,
or could they be improved?
Due to the shortage of available time for PMBs, the ballot system has merit. However it is arbitrary that 20
names are chosen and that just seven of them get priority. If more time were given to PMBs (for example in
Westminster Hall on a Monday to Thursday) then more of the balloted PMBs could move to Committee where
fuller scrutiny can be undertaken before the bill returns to the floor of the House at Report Stage.
With the current procedures, the Government (and the House) could support more balloted PMBs receiving
an unopposed 2nd Reading so that these bills could at least be considered in full at Committee and/or at Report,
or even on occasion speed to the statute book more quickly than that. For example, the Building Societies
(Distributions) Act 1997, a bill which removed the anomaly that only the first named account holder could
benefit from a building society flotation, went through all stages in one day. It also has the distinction of being
one of only a very few Ten Minute Rule bills to reach the statute book. As noted above, any bill that passes
all the Commons Stages still must pass the House of Lords’ stages too where detailed scrutiny may take place.
9. What are the advantages and disadvantages of moving consideration of private Members’ bills, wholly or
partly, from Fridays to other times in the week, for example a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday evening, or
holding some debates on private Members’ bills in Westminster Hall?
The advantage of moving PMB business from a Friday is that more Members will be able to take part. The
only other solution would be to have Government business take place on a Friday so that Members are required
to be in the House. Which? can see no disadvantage to moving PMB business to any other day or times of the
week. Another advantage will be that any PMB legislation that has begun life in the Lords will have a greater
chance of being debated, scrutinised and passed by the Commons.
10. Witnesses may also wish to comment on the merits of the following proposals which have been suggested
as means of improving the existing procedures for private Members’ bills:
— A requirement for public consultation on a private Members’ bill before it is introduced, or priority for
debating time given to bills which have undergone such consultation
Which? has no objection to a requirement for public consultation given that we would never propose a PMB
that does not have public benefit. However, if the current procedures are not substantially reformed to enable
more PMBs to proceed through all stages, we think any consultation might be better done either between 1st
and 2nd Reading or prior to Committee. If consultation is required before 1st reading, this may necessitate
expense that is then wasted if the bill does not even get presented. On the other hand, if consultation can be
achieved along the lines of a Select Committee “Call for Evidence” then this need not be an onerous duty.
— An automatic three-hour guillotine on second reading of a private Members’ bill
We are sympathetic to this suggestion if the time available for PMB business remains as restricted as now.
— Qualitative, rather than merely procedural, means of deciding which private Members’ bills get debating
time, eg by using the Backbench Business Committee or a similar committee established for the purpose
We are unsure how quality will be judged, not least as every MP (and outside organisation promoting PMBs)
will think their PMB is the most important. This is why we remain attracted to the ballot but with reformed
PMB procedures that actually enable any bill with merit to proceed rather than be blocked by procedural
techniques at or before 2nd Reading (or later). It would also have the advantage of ensuring the relevant
Government Department takes the PMB seriously from an earlier stage, perhaps in advance of its presentation.
— Timetabling of private Members’ bills (similarly to programming of Government bills)
We agree with this proposal.
— Allowing more than one public bill committee to be established to consider private Members’ bills
(without requiring Government approval)
We strongly agree with this proposal.
— A restriction on the number of bills any one private Member can have on the Order Paper at any one
time
We do not have a view.
— Time limits on speeches on private Members’ bills
We agree with this proposal in principle, though consider it should be a decision for the Speaker if it is clear
there are a lot of MPs wishing to speak in a debate for which there is limited allocated time.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w13
— Deferred voting on private Members’ bills
We agree with this proposal.
APPENDIX 1
TEXT OF LETTER FROM WHICH? SENT TO ALL 20 MPS SUCCESSFUL IN THE PMB BALLOT
Thursday, 17 May 2012
«salutation»,
Private Members’ Bill Ballot 2012
Congratulations on coming «ballot_position» in this year’s Private Members’ Bill ballot.
Which? is a consumer champion and we now have over 50 years campaigning for change on behalf of
consumers. We have a proven track record of working successfully on Private Members’ Bills; examples
includes Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith’s Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) bill and Austin Mitchell’s
bill to end the solicitor monopoly on conveyancing. Drawing on this experience, this year Which? is promoting
five Private Members’ Bills on a wide range of issues where we think the law needs changing, and where
you would have a realistic chance of success. We hope one of our bills will be of interest to you and to
your constituents.
Our aim with each bill varies—some of them we see as ideal candidates to become law, others we see as
part of a longer term campaign to get change. I enclose a short briefing note on each bill but in summary our
bills would:
— Require all lettings agents to join an approved complaints scheme.
— Bring claims management firms under the jurisdiction of the Legal Ombudsman.
— Update the rules on price marking in shops to, among other things, include promotions.
— Set new requirements on energy providers to have simple tariffs.
— Enable parents of children with Child Trust Funds to transfer into a Junior ISA.
We think any one of these bills will strike a chord with your constituents. We’d hope to create significant
media interest both locally and nationally for you (including in our own magazine, read by over 1 million
people). And of course you will be able to rely on the extensive resources of Which? to support you with the
necessary policy briefing, public affairs expertise and legal assistance.
As Whitsun recess begins next week, I hope we can meet at the earliest opportunity. My Advocacy Team
will be in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Which?
APPENDIX 2
TEXT OF THE BRIEFING NOTE FROM WHICH? SENT TO ALL 20 MPS SUCCESSFUL IN THE PMB
BALLOT ABOUT ONE OF OUR 5 SUGGESTED BILLS
Letting Agents (Redress) Bill
A Bill to Require Letting Agents to Join an Approved Complaints Scheme
What would the bill do?
The bill is a simple one: it would require all lettings agents to join an approved complaints scheme. Letting
agent means any person letting private property to prospective tenants for rent on behalf of a landlord/
property owner.
How would this be achieved?
By an amendment to the Estate Agent Act 1979 Clause 2 (Interests in Land) and/or the Consumers, Estate
Agents and Redress Act 2007 Schedule 6 (Estate Agents’ Redress Schemes) to bring letting agents within the
same redress framework as sales agents currently meet.
Why is the bill necessary?
After Which? campaigning, the law was eventually changed to require estate agents to join a complaints
scheme (the Consumers Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007). This came into force in October 2008. However
a huge loophole remained: agents who let property privately are not covered only those who sell property (or
those who fall under the remit of the social housing Housing Ombudsman). So consumers who rent private
property do not have the same access to redress as consumers who buy property. This applies of course equally
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Ev w14 Procedure Committee: Evidence
to landlords as it does to tenants as the letting agent deals with both sides, though is under contract to the
landlord. It means that there are no mandatory rules of conduct governing how client money is handled and
the OFT does not have the power to ban a letting agent from operating. This has resulted in a number of cases
reported in the media where consumers have lost considerable sums of money where agents have acted
fraudulently or negligently.
Who would the bill affect?
It would only affect letting agents. At a minimum, they would be required to join a complaints scheme. At
its fullest extent, the bill could mean the provisions of the Estate Agent Act 1979 would apply to letting agents.
However, as approximately 60% (an estimated 9,000 offices) have voluntarily joined a redress scheme due to
their trade association requiring it, this means there are 40% (around 6,000 offices) which aren’t. As many
MPs will know from their constituency caseload, often it is these letting agents who cause the most harm to
consumers—both landlords and tenants.
How would it be enforced?
Enforcement would fall to local trading standards as is already the case with sales agents under the existing
legislation. We do not expect enforcement to be an onerous or expensive task as already 60% of letting agents
are members of a redress scheme and we think the bill will largely be self-enforcing; we think the better letting
agents will know which of their local rivals do not meet the same standards as they do and prompt them to
join. We will also do our best to inform consumers—both tenants and landlords—to check that the letting agent
is meeting the requirements of the law. The requirement on sales agents to join a complaints scheme from
October 2008 has led to very few enforcement cases by trading standards.
Who supports the bill?
There is widely held support for addressing the problems in the lettings market. The OFT is looking at
issuing more guidance on unfair contract terms while The Property Ombudsman publicly supports widening
redress to include all letting agents. In his Annual Report 2011 he wrote “if regulation of the private rented
sector through legislation is unlikely….another approach is to make membership of a redress scheme
compulsory”.
Membership of a redress scheme is also supported by the Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA)
and National Approved Letting Scheme (NALS); both require their members to join an approved complaints
scheme. Organisations representing landlords, consumer organisations like Shelter and Citizens Advice and
think tanks such as the Resolution Foundation are also supportive.
Problems with renting homes regularly feature in Parliament (in parliamentary questions adjournment
debates, etc) so Which? does not think the bill is politically contentious—it is likely that MPs from all parties
would support this minor change in the law from their constituency perspective.
What is the Government’s likely response?
The bill has a purposely narrowly written focus because, by only requiring lettings agents to join a complaints
scheme, it is less likely the Government can oppose it. Not only does it close an obvious loophole but it chimes
with the Government’s own agenda to encourage consumer empowerment. Currently consumers (either tenants
or landlords) have no recourse to redress other than by taking court action. Furthermore, the bill neither
regulates letting agents nor sets standards from the centre so it should not fall foul of the Red Tape Challenge.
Would the bill cost the taxpayer any money?
No. Any costs would fall on letting agents and as noted above the enforcement costs to local trading
standards are likely to be minimal. As already noted, 100% of sales agents and approximately 60% of letting
agents already meet the cost of joining a complaints scheme.
What is chance of the bill becoming law?
With Government support, the chances are very high.
7 January 2013
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w15
Written evidence submitted by Joan Walley MP (P 73, 2012–13)
I was selected in the 2010 ballot and introduced the Public Bodies (Sustainable Food) Bill. I worked
particularly closely with Sustain and Friends of the Earth and also had the support of 56 other organisations
including the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, 10:10, Age UK, Unite the Union, WWF, the Chartered
Institute of Environmental Health, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Compassion in World
Farming and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. These organisations in turn mobilised their many
thousands of members and that is why I believe it is so important to get the procedure for private members
bills right.
Private members bills are an increasingly rare example of widespread civic participation in our political
process. My experience is that many people contact their MP in support of a private members bill but they
often have their hopes dashed when the Bill is either filibustered or not debated at all. This leads to a sense of
disillusionment amongst the public, is damaging to the political process and risks a growing disconnect between
politicians and the public.
We must address this and I believe that, given the right procedural reforms, private members bills could be
an effective means to re-engage with the public and demonstrate that they really can influence policy making.
At the heart of system should be the principle that the merits of a private members bill should at the very
least be considered by parliament and a decision reached one way or the other. Currently only a very small
proportion of such bills are debated on the floor of the House and even those that are debated are often
filibustered. As I have stated, this leads to disillusionment amongst the public and at a time when trust in
parliament is low, we must not ignore such perceptions.
Suggestions as to how this could be improved include allowing time on Tuesdays or Wednesdays for private
members bills, allowing the Backbench Business Committee to allocate time to private members bills, allowing
deferred divisions so MPs can remain in their constituencies on Fridays, or taking measures to prevent a small
number of MPs filibustering Bills. Such reforms would enable private members bills to receive fair
consideration, ensure backbench MPs have some power to introduce legislation and encourage the public to
play an active role in the political process.
I hope these comments are of some use to the Committee and I have also asked some of the campaign
groups I worked with to submit their views to you.
20 December 2012
Written evidence submitted by Steve Brine MP (P 74, 2012–13)
I have one main beef about PMB’s—they are on a Friday.
Like most MPs I am sure, I have 2013 (surgery etc) all mapped out already so it means cancelling things to
make a PMB is it’s important to me or a colleague needs help. I am very often here four days a week so it is
not unreasonable that the good people of Winchester expect me there on a Friday.
Can’t be in two places so now these awful new sitting times are in place and Parliament is a graveyard on
many evenings, why not shift PMBs (at least in part) to a Tues or Weds night?
Hope this helps.
5 December 2012
Written evidence submitted by Dr Julian Huppert MP (P 76, 2012–13)
What is the private Members’ bill procedure for? Should it continue to be used as a vehicle for getting a
debate, or should it be used only for serious legislative propositions?
I think it would not be possible or desirable to separate those two issues; both should continue as
legitimate activities.
Is it right that backbenchers should be able to bring forward their own legislative propositions and see them
become law, or is the instigation of legislation properly the sole preserve of the duly elected Government of
the day?
It is right and essential that legislation be initiatable by backbenchers.
Does the private Members’ bill process enable Bills to stand or fall on their merits? Is it rigorous enough to
afford bills sufficient scrutiny before they become law?
The process fails on many fronts—it does not provide sufficient scrutiny for bills, but also means that many
bills fail regardless of their merits, which are not properly considered at all.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Ev w16 Procedure Committee: Evidence
How far do the current procedures for private Members’ bills strike the right balance between ensuring that
proposals for legislation are adequately debated, and enabling the will of the House as to whether a bill
should proceed to prevail? What changes might improve that balance?
The system as it currently operated neither ensures adequate debate, nor a true test of the will of the House.
Moving the debates (or at least the divisions) to a time when more Members were around would be better, and
a time limit on speeches and on debate time would ensure that there was proper debate, rather than filibustering.
Is the ballot the right way of determining which Members’ bills get priority for debating time? What is the
role of ten minute rule motions and presentation bills? Should these procedures remain in their current form,
or could they be improved?
The current processes for commencement seem appropriate, and the least need of improvement.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of moving consideration of private Members’ bills, wholly or
partly, from Fridays to other times in the week, for example a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday evening, or
holding some debates on private Members’ bills in Westminster Hall?
Having debate when Members are more likely to be around will make it easier for proper discussions to
have, which are not just dependent on who is in London on a particular day. Westminster Hall is a perfectly
satisfactory location for debates.
Witnesses may wish to comment on the merits of the following proposals which have been suggested as
means of improving the existing procedures for private Members’ bills:
A requirement for public consultation on a private Members’ bill before it is introduced, or priority
for debating time given to bills which have undergone such consultation.
This would be desirable, but should not be a requirement.
An automatic three-hour guillotine on second reading of a private Members’ bill.
Agreed—although possibly three hours is too long. The aim should be to properly consider a certain number
of bills in each slot.
Qualitative, rather than merely procedural, means of deciding which private Members’ bills get debating
time, eg by using the Backbench Business Committee or a similar committee established for the purpose
This is worth investigating.
Timetabling of private Members’ bills (similarly to programming of Government bills)
Definitely.
Allowing more than one public bill committee to be established to consider private Members’ bills (without
requiring Government approval)
Definitely.
A restriction on the number of bills any one private Member can have on the Order Paper at any one time
Agreed—there is so little time available for any bills to be debated, that it is inappropriate for people to be
allowed to monopolise the available slots.
Time limits on speeches on private Members’ bills
Emphatically yes. Greater use should be made in general of time limits in all debates.
Deferred voting on private Members’ bills
Yes.
9 December 2012
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w17
Written evidence submitted by Graeme Robertson for the inquiry into Private Members’ Bills
(P 78, 2012–13)
My comment is that you make no reference in your “terms of reference” illustrative questions to consider
preventing and disciplining MP’s who filibuster Private members bills deliberately. In the 21st Century, surely
the speaker of the house should be empowered to eject MP’s who they view are deliberately seeking to filibuster
a private members bill. Deliberate filibustering makes a mockery of the issue of determining whether a balance
between adequate debate and enabling the will of the House as to whether a bill should proceed to prevail is
properly evaluated.
In my view deliberate filibustering is anti democratic, a sign of dishonourable conduct and the mark of a
person not fit to hold public office.
29 December 2012
Written evidence submitted by the Sport and Recreation Alliance (P 79, 2012–13)
Introduction
The Sport and Recreation Alliance is the national independent voice for sport and recreation, representing
over 300 member organisations including the national governing bodies of sport and county sport partnerships.
Our members account for 151,000 sports clubs catering for some 13 million participants, and the Alliance
works to protect and promote the role of sport and recreation in healthy and active lifestyles.
The Lighter Later Campaign
As an organisation committed to increasing levels of physical activity across the population, the Alliance is
a leading member of the Lighter Later coalition, which brings together 42,000 individuals and over 90
organisations in support of a shift to Single/Double Summer Time (SDST). The Lighter Later campaign, which
ran from March 2010 until June 2012, championed the Daylight Saving Bill, tabled by Rebecca Harris MP.
The Bill itself did not require a change in the clocks—only for the Government to carry out a study to fully
consider the case. Yet, unfortunately, and despite huge support from the general public and a wide range of
businesses and charitable organisations, the Daylight Saving Bill fell at the Report Stage in January 2012.
Our comments in response to the Committee’s questions, set out below, reflect our experience of supporting
that campaign.
Questions
1. What is the Private Members’ Bill procedure for? Should it continue to be used as a vehicle for getting a
debate, or should it be used only for serious legislative propositions?
and
2. Is it right that backbenchers should be able to bring forward their own legislative propositions and see
them become law, or is the instigation of legislation properly the sole preserve of the duly elected
Government of the day?
The Alliance believes that Private Members’ Bills have a significant role to play in facilitating legislative
action on issues that are important to the nation but which have not been prioritised by the government. The
proposals outlined in the Daylight Saving Bill had strong public support and were backed by a broad alliance
of safety campaigners, sport and recreation bodies, tourism organisations and businesses, environmentalists,
drivers’ organisations, public health experts and community charities. We believe that as a result of the
campaign, and particularly in light of the significant cross-party support for the measures outlined in the Bill,
the Government began to take seriously the case for moving to SDST.
Whilst the Government’s legislative programme deals with important matters, it all too often fails to capture
the imagination of the public. Government bills, especially when controversial, swallow up parliamentary time,
often to the detriment of debate and legislation on other important issues which the public care about.
Since it is one of the few ways to introduce legislative change outside of the government’s agenda, we take
the view that all use of the process as a vehicle for debate should be eliminated. This would free up the
available time for real legislative progress. Other vehicles, like Westminster Hall debates, oral questions and
Ten Minute Rule Bills exist for MPs to highlight matters which don’t require legislative action. The PMB
process should be reserved exclusively for issues on which serious legislative progress can be made.
We believe is quite legitimate for an MP to expect an opportunity to bring forward a legislative proposal
and, if offered the support of other parliamentarians, to see their proposal in the statute book.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Ev w18 Procedure Committee: Evidence
3. Does the Private Members’ Bill process enable Bills to stand or fall on their merits? Is it rigorous enough
to afford bills sufficient scrutiny before they become law?
and
4. How far do the current procedures for Private Members’ Bills strike the right balance between ensuring
that proposals for legislation are adequately debated, and enabling the will of the House as to whether a bill
should proceed to prevail? What changes might improve that balance?
The Daylight Saving Bill passed its second reading in December 2010 with incredible cross-party support
and an overwhelming majority of 92 to 10. It took a further year to pass its money resolution and reach
committee stage, but was easily passed by committee in under four hours, with the support of both government
and opposition. At the Report Stage, over 140 MPs postponed constituency business to support the Daylight
Saving Bill thanks to the active engagement of tens of thousands of their constituents, a huge grassroots support
programme and the backing of a coalition of charities and businesses. Despite this clear demonstration of the
“will of the House” and the will of the people, a handful of MPs were able to derail the bill. The tactics
resorted to were deemed by many observers to be juvenile, cynical and an affront to the democratic process.
While only six pages long, the Bill attracted over 100 amendments tabled by the MPs in question. Many of
these were not considered worthy of debate; of those tabled, only 28 made it onto the list for discussion. For
example, one time-wasting amendment stipulated that “the County of Somerset… shall revert to the customary
time used prior to the Great Western Railway time established in 1840.”
Those supporters of the Bill who watched events unfold from outside the chamber were dismayed by the
inability of the House to put a stop to the mischief. One opponent took up the first hour of the debate almost
singlehandedly, and Members were forced to employ the rarely used Standing Order 29 to move the debate
on. Beyond this, however, the blatant timewasting tactics of a small group went unchecked. Campaigners and
members of the public who had worked hard for nearly two years found reports of “mucking around” in the
voting lobby particularly hard to stomach.
There had been ample time during the rest of the Bill’s passage to address any legitimate concerns. This
gratuitous filibustering served only to negatively reinforce the views of many members of the public about
parliament, parliamentarians and their effectiveness—however unfair those may be.
The organisation behind the Lighter Later campaign, 10:10, carried out an analysis of the report stage debate.
They found that:
— Of 160 MPs present, 70% of all words spoken were from 10 MPs.
— The same 10 MPs consistently voted to extend the debate.
— 146 MPs consistently voted to progress the debate.
— 25% of all words spoken at the debate were by one MP who consistently voted to extend
the debate.
The MP for Exeter, Ben Bradshaw, summed up the situation well at the time when he commented:
“No Private Member’s Bill in memory has enjoyed such strong all-party support and if this one can’t
be given the chance of getting onto the statute book we might as well scrap the whole system of
Private Members’ Bills.”
It is our belief that the failure of the system in this instance has eroded confidence in Parliament. We are
particularly conscious of the fact that many of the 42,000 supporters of the Daylight Saving Bill, it would have
been the first time they have engaged in the Parliamentary process. Our fear is that they will be much less
inclined to do so again in the future and that is a great pity given the regard in which parliament is held by
some voters. Sadly, the Daylight Saving Bill is not an isolated case. Our strong belief is that for faith in
Parliament and the political process to be fully restored, the Private Members’ Bill system must be reformed
to guard against timewasting and filibustering and to ensure the will of the House cannot be ignored again.
5. Is the ballot the right way of determining which Members’ bills get priority for debating time? What is the
role of 10 minute rule motions and presentation bills? Should these procedures remain in their current form,
or could they be improved?
The Alliance has no specific comments to share on this point.
6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of moving consideration of Private Members’ Bills, wholly or
partly, from Fridays to other times in the week, for example a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday evening, or
holding some debates on Private Members’ Bills in Westminster Hall?
As stated above, it is noteworthy that over 140 MPs took the decision to dedicate time that would usually
be spent in the constituency to staying in Westminster and supporting the Bill. A great deal of effort was
expended by grassroots supporters, lobbying their own MP to be present on the day of the vote in the
expectation that it would be rewarded with progress. The Alliance would strongly support any move that
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w19
enabled Private Members’ Bills to be considered on other days of the week; this would not require MPs to
choose between supporting a Bill and spending time in their constituencies.
8 January 2013
Written evidence submitted by Anne Vasey (P 80, 2012–13)
I understand you are currently looking into the system for Private Members’ bills, and I would like to
highlight the issues which became apparent on 20 January 2012, at the third reading of the Daylight Saving Bill.
On this occasion, a bill supported by 120 MPs, 90 national organisations and a groundswell of public opinion
was prevented from proceeding by just a couple of hostile MPs. These individuals ensured that time was
wasted, such that there was no scope for the bill to go to a vote.
As a result the bill is now scrapped, against the wishes of the majority. This sort of thing makes a complete
mockery of the democratic process, and I hope you can find a way to prevent it happening in future.
20 December 2012
Written evidence submitted by Jeremy Lefroy MP (P 83, 2012–13)
My two contributions to the debate would be:
(1) That a Member can only be drawn for one Bill in a Parliament. That makes the chances of any
member being drawn slightly greater.
(2) That Bills can be debated on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings until 10pm to ensure more
interest in the debate.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by Paola Collins (P 84, 2012–13)
I was deeply disappointed that the Daylight Saving Bill was effectively “talked out” of time by MPs who
opposed even looking at change. For an issue which seems to be important and emotive to everyone that I
have personally discussed it with to be so blatantly obstructed in such a premeditated way made the whole
process feel distinctly undemocratic. Parliament and its procedures were very much on view that day and it
was a shocking indictment; a few people in power can obstruct the will of the population; causing disillusion.
I am writing to share my disappointment with you in the hope that changes may eventually be made which
might allow this bill and others like it might be able to be properly heard and potentially acted open.
January 2013
Written evidence submitted by Joy Miller (P 85, 2012–13)
Arcane and archaic. Reminiscent of children’s party games. There has to be a better way of doing it than this.
And without time limits on speeches on private Members’ bills the whole procedure becomes a farce.
There has to be a better way.
January 2013
Written evidence submitted by Mark Bracey (P 86, 2012–13)
I was deeply disappointed that the Daylight Saving Bill was effectively “talked out” of time by MPs who
opposed even looking at change. For an issue which seems to be important and emotive to everyone that I
have personally discussed it with to be so blatantly obstructed in such a premeditated way made the whole
process feel distinctly undemocratic. Parliament and its procedures were very much on view that day and it
was a shocking indictment to how people in power can obstruct the will of the population and it is no wonder
that individuals can become disillusioned with democracy. I am writing to share my disappointment with you
in the hope that changes may eventually be made which might allow this bill and others like it might be able
to be properly heard.
January 2013
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Ev w20 Procedure Committee: Evidence
Written evidence submitted by Campaign for Better Hospital Food (P90, 2012–13)
Both the Good Food for Our Money campaign and Campaign for Better Hospital Food have helped MPs to
introduce Private Members’ Bills, and worked to build public and Parliamentary support for them. This includes
the “Public Bodies (Sustainable Food) Bill”, which was introduced to Parliament by Joan Walley MP after she
was drawn in the Private Members’ Bill ballot in 2010.
We have also helped to support a number of Ten Minute Rule Bills. This includes a Bill introduced by Chris
Mullin MP in 2009 calling for only cage-free eggs to be served in all public sector organisations and a
Bill introduced by David Drew MP in 2010 calling for all fish bought by the public sector to be certified
as sustainable.
The Value of Private Members’ Bills
Private Members’ Bills provide a valuable opportunity for MPs to introduce legislation which is urgently
needed, but may have been overlooked or ignored by Government. Equally, Private Members’ Bills provide
an opportunity for campaigning organisations and members of the public to request MPs to take forward
legislation which they believe is needed.
While Private Members’ Bills are rarely successful without receiving Government support, they are effective
in raising the profile of specific issues and ensuring that they are given consideration by Government civil
servants responsible for that policy area. A popular Private Members’ Bill is also likely to get the attention of
Government Ministers, either because they receive public attention or because officials in their Government
department are motivated to raise the matter with them. Forcing the issue on to the Government’s radar in this
way encourages action to be taken to deal with the issue(s) raised by the Bill.
Private Members’ Bills are a valuable part of the democratic process. They offer an opportunity for members
of the public to support calls for new legislation or changes to existing legislation, and strengthen public
interest in the parliamentary process. They also encourage voters to communicate with their local MPs and
give backbench MPs a rare opportunity to influence Government policy on behalf of their constituents. In this
way, the public can witness Parliament listening to their concerns and taking action to address them.
Making it difficult for Private Members’ Bills to proceed from their First Reading is not a sensible or
attractive way to prevent bad legislation. There are more than enough safeguards in the legislative process to
prevent unnecessary or poorly conceived Bills from becoming law.
Problems with Private Members’ Bills
They are not considered objectively by Government
Without Government support, a Private Members’ Bill stands very little chance of becoming successful.
They are purposely given less priority than Public Bills, and therefore rarely get enough Parliamentary time to
proceed through the long legislative process. Bills which do not receive Government support are also unlikely
to be supported by MPs who belong to a political party which is in Government or loyal to it. When Private
Members’ Bills get Government support, they get “whipped” through Parliament by supportive MPs or are
simply adopted as part of the Government’s legislative programme.
Private Members’ Bills do not receive Government support because of their perceived value or importance,
but only if they are in keeping with Government policies and help them to achieve their existing objectives.
This reality means that Private Members’ Bills are often drafted to appeal to Government, rather than drafted
to tackle the problem they raise.
Government can be encouraged to support a Bill if it has massive public and Parliamentary support, but
only then because Government Ministers fear the political repercussions of inaction.
The Private Members’ Bill ballot process is archaic and inadequate
The Parliamentary process for Bills drawn from the Private Members’ Bills ballot is archaic and we wish to
draw the Committee’s attention to the clear inadequacies and failures in the system.
Private Members’ Bill introduced by MPs drawn in the ballot are more likely to succeed than Ten Minute
Rule Bills and Presentation Bills. This is because they are guaranteed to receive a Second Reading if one
hundred MPs vote for a “Motion of Closure” during its First Reading, or if the Bill receives no opposition
from MPs at the end of the First Reading debate. This is not the case for Ten Minute Rule and Presentation
Bills which can not be progressed to a Second Reading in this way. After their First Reading, they fall to the
back of a very long line of Bills which are never to appear again while they wait for Parliamentary time for a
Second Reading.
There are three key problems with the system for Private Members’ Bills drawn from the Ballot. These
are that:
1. The First and Second Reading can only take place on a Friday, when most MPs have returned
to their constituency.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w21
2. 100 supportive MPs are required to support a “Motion of Closure” to progress the Bill to its
Second Reading.
3. If a “Motion of Closure” is not achieved, MPs opposed to the Bill can filibuster during the First
Reading to delay a vote (to decide whether to send the Bill to its Second Reading), and can
ultimately kill the Bill by simply signalling their opposition to it at the end of the time allotted
for debate.
The system makes it extremely difficult for a Bill to proceed to its Second Reading. A huge lobbying effort
is required to get a “Motion of Closure”. Conversely, it is easy for a single MP—perhaps with encouragement
from the Government—to prevent a Bill which hasn’t received a Motion of Closure from progressing.
This system undermines the huge efforts which are put into drafting popular Private Members’ Bills and
building support for them. It also needlessly prevents sensible, pragmatic—and often sorely needed—Bills
from undergoing Parliamentary scrutiny and debate.
Changes we would like to see
We would like to see the following changes to the procedure for Private Members’ Bill drawn from the ballot:
—
Time limits on speeches by MPs to make it more difficult for them to “talk out” Bills at their
First Reading.
—
Moving consideration of Bills to days in the week other than Friday, to make it easier for MPs
to attend in support of a Bill at its First Reading.
—
To reduce the number of MPs required for a “Motion of Closure”, perhaps to 50, to provide a
fairer litmus test for the popularity of a Bill.
January 2013
Written evidence submitted by Parliament First APPG (P 101, 2012–13)
Private Members’ Bills (PMBs) should have an important place in the parliamentary process since no
government should have an exclusive right to initiate legislation. Yet the opportunity for Backbenchers
successfully to sponsor bills in the Commons has been progressively restricted over recent decades as the
Executive has increasingly asserted its quasi-monopoly over legislation through a combination of Departmental
hostility, obstructionism by the Whips, and the operation of rules designed to squeeze out non-government
initiatives. This is not healthy either for Members’ capacity to represent the public’s call for reforms or for
Parliament’s role of keeping the Executive accountable. Major changes are now needed.
At present too many PMBs are strangled by artificial procedures intended to limit their effectiveness and
keep such bills subservient to the will of government. The main devices used to this effect are:
—
PMBs are confined to Fridays when most MPs have left to return to their constituencies
(especially now that most Thursdays are taken up with BBBC debates and government business
has often ended by 7pm on Wednesdays),
—
If a motion that “the House do now sit in private” is moved at the start of a PMB Friday sitting
and if fewer than 40 MPs vote for it, then the bill is deferred to the next PMB sitting day,
which may wreck its chances,
—
Only 13 Friday sittings are made available for PMBs in each session, even though there are
many other Fridays when the House is not sitting at all,
—
Given that PMBs are restricted to just 65 hours over the whole of the session and that speeches
are not time-limited by the Speaker, they are highly vulnerable to filibustering since, unlike
government bills, they are not timetabled,
—
Closure motions to bring debate to an end before 2.30pm or to defeat filibustering require at
least 100 MPs to vote in favour of the motion, which is an arbitrarily high number on a Friday,
especially when most MPs will regard spending hours at Westminster waiting for a vote on a
Friday (which may well be lost anyway) an unjustifiable use of their time away from their
constituency,
—
Standing Orders prescribe arbitrarily that, even if a PMB survives second reading, only one
public bill committee to consider PMBs may operate at any one time, unless the government
nominates a second public bill committee to sit simultaneously,
—
At report stage (if that is reached), a PMB can be easily talked out by the tabling of a few
amendments,
—
The net effect of all these artificial constraints is that it is almost impossible for a PMB to
succeed unless it has the complete support of the government.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [28-08-2013 09:36] Job: 029972 Unit: PG01
Ev w22 Procedure Committee: Evidence
These drawbacks indicate the need for a series of reforms if PMBs are to have a serious role in Parliament
and in particular to be freed from strangulation by the Executive. We would advocate the following changes:
1. On timing, PMBs could be moved from Fridays and switched instead to Tuesday or Wednesday
evenings after 7pm, Wednesday mornings, or Thursday afternoons after 5pm, in whatever
combination might be decided by the BBBC (with spill-over from one stage to the next
permitted, as with government bills). Alternatively, or in conjunction, if some PMB second
readings were still held on Fridays, the system of deferred divisions could operate so that the
vote was taken after PMQs on Wednesday at 12.30pm.
2. On location, the convention that only one public bill committee should be sitting at any one
time on PMBs should be lifted, and PMBs could then be allotted to Westminster Hall for their
committee and report stages. The combination of these first two reforms could raise the number
of hours available for PMBs over a session to at least 100.
3. Timetabling should be introduced automatically for all PMBs, with 3 hours allotted for second
reading, 3 hours for report stage (or, if that is not sufficient, committal to a special Report
Committee for a maximum for 20 hours, with any Member permitted to attend and speak), and
1 hour for third reading. We also believe that Backbench speeches on PMBs should be restricted
to no more than 10 minutes, and preferably 6–8 minutes.
4. On resources, the assistance provided for Members to draft their bill should be increased from
the £200 fixed in 1971 to £500–£1,000 today. It could also be used to hold sessions to consult
experts in the field as well as to take evidence from the public.
We believe this set of reforms would inject new life into PMBs, would engage the interest and involvement
of the public much more in the parliamentary process, and would enable a whole range of issues currently
sidelined by the government of the day to be seriously considered for legislation. Of course the government
would retain the right and the capacity to oppose any such bill through its command of a majority in the House,
but it would have to use argument and persuasion to do so rather than as at present resorting to underhand and
artificial procedural devices.
23 January 2013
Written evidence submitted by Natascha Engel MP, Chair of the Backbench Business Committee
(P 110, 2012–13)
Thank you for your letter seeking my views on the possible role for the Backbench Business Committee in
the private Members’ bills process.
As I mentioned to you in our conversation, I believe that one of the strengths of the Backbench Business
Committee lies in the fact that we do not have the power to instigate legislation. We are an administrative
forum which enables backbenchers to schedule backbench debates.
To give the Backbench Business Committee powers to instigate legislation in the form of private Members’
bills would, I believe, alter the nature of the Committee too greatly.
12 February 2013
The Stationery Office Limited
08/2013
029972
19585