Video Recordings Bill (Allocation of Time)

House of Commons, 6 January 2010.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Video Recordings Bill-

Timetable

1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

2. When the Bill has been read a second time-

(a) it shall (despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order)) stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

3.-(1) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(2) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)-

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments

6.-(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

7.-(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith-

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith-

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has-

(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or

(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

8.-(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

9.-(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

10.-(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chairman shall-

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and

(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

11. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.

12.-(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

14.-(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.

(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

15.-(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

16. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today's sitting before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

17.-(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

18. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

19.-(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7 pm, 4 pm or 3 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7 pm, 4 pm or 3 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.

This is a short Bill designed to repeal and revise the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984, including the offences under the Act. The offences were made unenforceable because of a failure to notify the offences and other provisions of the 1984 Act in draft to the European Commission in accordance with the technical standards directive.

Until the Video Recordings Act is repealed and revived, no new prosecutions can be made under the Act. This means that publishers of video games and DVDs can distribute their goods free of classification requirements, and retailers can sell or supply adult material, including explicit pornography.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

This matter was discovered some weeks ago. Have the Government caused an investigation to be held to find out why the European Commission was not informed about the draft?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The failure to notify the draft was in 1984, under the previous Conservative Administration, about whom I do not want to make cheap political points today. None of the Ministers or officials serving at the time is still in post. It was an unfortunate oversight, and we believe it to have been an isolated incident. What is important now is to rectify the situation, so that the current anomalous loophole, whereby inappropriate material can be sold to children without classification, is closed as soon as possible.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Minister accepts that it was down to a previous Administration. The practical cost to the House is an afternoon's business. He said that it was an isolated incident. Is he satisfied that it will not happen again, and that we will not waste hundreds of person-hours of this Chamber's time making the same mistake?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The Cabinet Office is looking to see whether this kind of thing might have happened on other occasions and, as far as we are aware, this is an isolated incident. As I say, the important thing is for the loophole to be swiftly closed today in this House, so that the protections that have been afforded to the public for 25 years by a very successful piece of legislation introduced under the previous Administration are enforceable once again-they have not been enforceable since August, when this oversight was discovered. I am sure that the House will agree that there is an urgent need for the legal protections to be reinstated.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

The Minister says that there is a loophole and he talks about trying to make the law enforceable. According to the House of Commons Library, there were 81 successful prosecutions for offences under the Act in 2006 and 139 in 2002. Is he saying that those prosecutions were not valid at the time? Would they-

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

Order. It pains me greatly to interrupt the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) but, as always, I am trying to be helpful. I listened with great interest to what he said, but I would not want the Minister to be diverted from the path of righteousness, and what has just been said over the past couple of minutes bears very little relation, if any, to the allocation of time motion.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I shall take your guidance, Mr. Speaker; I would be happy to discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman later in our proceedings, but it behoves me to take the guidance from the Chair. May I say-this is in response to the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am attempting to keep my remarks to the motion-that this is the first use of the fast-track procedure, as recently recommended by the relevant House of Lords Select Committee? We are dealing with what used to be called an "emergency piece of legislation". This Bill does not change, in any way, the existing 1984 Act; it simply repeals and then revives it quickly in two short clauses, in order to make the existing Act enforceable, which is why we are seeking to deal with this quickly today with the minimum of delay.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

We agree.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not wish to disagree with the motion, but I want to make a point on procedure. It is not good procedure for this House to proceed with Bills in a single day unless there are overwhelming reasons to do so. Such reasons are sometimes associated with national security and sometimes with urgent circumstances outside the House. There is a reason for our procedures in this House and a reason why we have a delay between Second Reading, Committee and Report: to enable matters to be properly considered in order and to ensure not only that Members who wish to contribute to the debate can do so, but that those outside the House are able to make observations on the Bill as it proceeds. I have no doubt that this is a simple tidying-up provision, and there is every indication that it will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It could therefore have been dealt with simply over the normal time period and in two chunks to enable us to maintain the principles of parliamentary procedure; I do not entirely understand why it should be dealt with in a single day. That is an exceptional way of doing business and there does not seem to be the exceptional need for such an approach on this occasion. We had several days prior to the Christmas recess when we could easily have slipped in the Bill's Second Reading and then proceeded in the normal way. Perhaps the Minister could tell me why that did not happen.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

That could not have been done because the situation was caused by a failure to notify under the technical standards directive. In order for the provision to work, we had to notify it in draft under that directive. We did that three months before 15 December. The first day on which we could have had the First Reading was 15 December, and we did so. Today-the second day back after the recess-is the first opportunity that we have had to deal with this on the Floor of the House.

There are two very important points to make on why we are dealing with the Bill so urgently in one day. First, we are not changing the law in any way. The existing law has been debated using all the full procedures and has been in force for 25 years-it is only the enforceability that turns out not to have been enacted, and we need to address that.

The second point that I want to stress is that the lack of enforceability has serious consequences. Almost any kind of serious, explicit, violent, brutal, nasty DVDs and video games can be supplied at the moment to anybody- [ Interruption. ] I am sorry; that was a long intervention.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the Minister for that long intervention, which was helpful. I am grateful to him for explaining the constraints on First Reading. I am simply making the point that this is not an approach that I think the House should readily accept from the Government. It is not my intention to divide the House on this issue, or to do anything of that kind. However, we need to make the point that procedure exists for a purpose. If we can improve procedure so that we take less time on things that do not need a lot of debate, I am all for it-it is part of the modernisation of the House that we spoke about in Prime Minister's questions. However, we need the delay between Second Reading and the completion of the passage of a Bill in this House if we are to make good law, and making good law is what this House is about. It sometimes achieves very little in the way of that because of the curtailing of procedures. That is the only observation that I have to make and I hope that we can now proceed.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I, too, shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, because of the guidance that you have given. I want to be reassured that when it comes to the substantive debate the Minister will deal with the points of substance to do with what has happened over the past 25 years, including the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)-issues such as what has happened to those who have been prosecuted and whether they will be entitled to compensation. If the Minister will deal with those points, I shall be happy to support the motion.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

You are a reasonable man, Mr. Speaker, so I can only presume that your necessary intervention earlier was caused by my not explaining myself sufficiently. I shall try again to overcome the difficulty that there seemed to be the first time around.

I take the points made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath): we should not be having Acts of Parliament made in one day, with all stages debated on that day, unless it is absolutely necessary. The purpose of my initial intervention on the Minister, which I hope I shall be able to clarify in my short speech, was that, given that there have been hundreds of prosecutions under the 1984 Act as it stands, can we satisfy ourselves that the Bill is so necessary and urgent that it must go through all its stages in one day? I urge the Minister to clarify where we are with the prosecutions under the 1984 Act. If they are no longer valid and therefore need to be rescinded, I should have thought that that would be important.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I understand entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but will he bear it in mind that every day that we wait to bring the legislation back into force, people will legitimately be able to sell inappropriate material to minors? Local authorities are being prosecuted because they have sought, apparently erroneously, to prosecute people for doing what we would all agree is wrong. We need to get on with it very quickly. Does he not agree?

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

I absolutely agree. In effect, that was the point that I was trying to tease out from the Minister in the first place. We need to know where we stand with existing prosecutions, because if they all have to be rescinded and if none of them now has any basis in law, we would need to do this all in one day. I hope that the Minister can explain that to our satisfaction so that we know the urgency of this matter.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I shall construe your silence on the matter, Mr. Speaker, as consent that I might reply to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) within the terms of this part of the debate. Prosecutions that occurred since the error was discovered in August will not have been able to proceed and will not be able to be instituted retrospectively. That is why-I think that this is what he was getting at-it is important to pass the Bill. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, not only does the situation continue with every day that goes past, but evidence from around the country shows that it is reasonable to assume that the problem will grow. The more people are not prosecuted for supplying very inappropriate material, the more people will see an angle through which they can make what one might call an evil buck. Over the past few years there have been between 100 and 200 prosecutions a year, on average, and a great deal of other activity, which might not be prosecuted, is deterred by the enforceability of the law. I hope that I have answered the points raised by the hon. Member for Shipley.

On the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), we will deal with the substantive issues in greater detail in the Second Reading debate on this short two-clause Bill. It does not in any way change an existing Act. It simply repeals and revives. On that basis, I commend the allocation of time motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Video Recordings Bill

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and others for their encouragement. We live in an age where videos, DVDs and more recently Blu-ray discs constitute a hugely important part of every family's entertainment. Figures compiled by the British Video Association show that a record 258 million DVDs, Blu-ray DVDs and videos were sold in 2008, with a total market value of £2.3 billion. A further 79 million videos, DVDs and Blu-ray DVDs were rented in 2008. The number of films sold on video has more than trebled in the past 10 years from 61 million units in 1999 to 196 million last year. According to the British Video Association, 6.5 million DVD players were sold in 2008, taking cumulative DVD hardware sales since launch to 55 million- the equivalent of two players for every household in the UK.

Videos and DVDs are an essential element of domestic life in the 21st century, yet they are a relatively recent part of our cultural experience. The video recorder was invented in the 1960s and began to take off as a mass market phenomenon only in the late 1970s. In 1979 there were 200,000 video recorders in the UK but by 1984, when the original Video Recordings Act was introduced, over 4 million had been sold. Looking to the future-I am sure that hon. Members will make this point later-there is a definite shift in how we consume both video and video game content. The online distribution models are developing and will no doubt continue to do so at an increasing pace.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Is the Minister aware of any convictions that are currently being challenged or are the subject of an appeal as a result of what appears to be a defective process?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Certainly, there will have been prosecutions that were pending or in process when the defect, to echo the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, was discovered. Those will have had to be stopped once it became apparent that the law was no longer enforceable because of its non-notification. We have heard of a handful of putative-usually putative-appeals or claims for compensation against previous convictions, although all our advice tells us that such speculative attempts to exploit the loophole further are likely to be unsuccessful.

Although the online environment is clearly the future and is going to grow, we must not be dismissive of the traditional boxed product. Only yesterday, senior executives from Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony were all reported as saying that digitally distributed product is unlikely to overtake the boxed product for some considerable time to come.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

It is very nice to hear about the contribution that the industry makes to the British economy. Does the Minister intend, in his speech, to touch on the Byron review and the Government's commitment to prevent violent video games from falling into the hands of young people? Are the Government still committed to the conclusions of Byron? Will the recommendations be implemented in full? When will the Digital Economy Bill come before the House? It deals with all the other issues that the Minister cannot deal with in the context of the present Bill.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is a tireless advocate of his views on the subject. Yes, the Government are committed to Byron and to child safety. The work of the Internet Watch Foundation and the Department for Children, Schools and Families-led group that has been set up in an unprecedented way across Government to look at all child safety issues online is very important, groundbreaking and central to what the Government are doing. As my right hon. Friend knows, those are matters not for today, but for the Digital Economy Bill, which is now in another place.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me a second time. He talked about the boxed games. One of the concerns is that when people buy video games, there is not sufficient notice on those games that they have adult content, which is central to what the Video Recordings Bill hopes to do-to ensure proper enforcement. Is there anything in the proposal or in any measure that the Government propose to introduce in the near future that will ensure that when retailers sell such games, it is clear that they have adult content-that is, by increasing the very small notification on the box that it is an adult game?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

As my right hon. Friend knows, child safety, boxed games, and good information that is readily understandable by the public when adult content is included in games or DVDs are central to our approach and to the Byron recommendation that content should be clearly labelled and that content unsuitable for children should not be made available for children.

However, that is not a matter for today. None of the provisions that we are discussing today in this short two-clause Bill will affect that in any way. The size of the rating symbols on the boxes is a subject which I know my right hon. Friend and I will discuss at length in the Committee stage of the Digital Economy Bill. I look forward to that, but it is not something that I should be diverted into discussing today.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister will be aware, as many of us are, that because of the length of time that it now looks likely the Digital Economy Bill will take in another place, there is a real possibility that time will run out to complete its passage through both Houses before the forthcoming general election. Given the importance of the specific issue raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, will the Minister give an assurance to the House that if time ran out, measures would be sought to find agreement so that at least that aspect, on which there is all-party agreement, could still get on to the statute book?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

We have every intention of getting the Digital Economy Bill in its entirety on to the statute book although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in order to do that, we will be partly reliant on the good will of members of his party and of the official Opposition- [Interruption.]

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

Order.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I think I have made the point. We intend to get the legislation through before the election. If the hon. Member for Bath and his hon. Friends, and right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, will help us with that, that would be the best approach for all concerned.

I shall make progress. As I said, we should not be blinded by the online future and discount the importance of the massive volume of boxed products that will continue to be sold in the UK.

The early 1980s saw the introduction, largely from America, of what became known as video nasties: videos that depicted acts of gross violence and violent sexual acts-acts so extreme that they caused concern about the potential effects of watching them on young people and vulnerable adults. In response, Parliament passed in 1984 the Video Recordings Act. That Act introduced a system for classifying video films and some video games according to their content, and a series of offences for supplying classified videos and video games to people under the age restriction. The 1984 Act also stopped the distribution of video nasties by ensuring that such films did not receive a classification and making it an offence to supply unclassified material.

Some 25 years on, it is clear that the provisions of the 1984 Act have worked to remove the worst material from circulation. For example, the British Board of Film Classification, the body appointed under the 1984 Act to classify videos and DVDs, recently refused to classify the highly controversial Japanese film, "Grotesque". The BBFC explained that

"the film has running themes of sexual assault, humiliation and extreme torture...and...presents the audience with...an unrelenting and escalating scenario of...sadism...(including sexual sadism) for its own sake."

The 1984 Act was introduced to remove such films from general circulation, and I am sure that all hon. Members will congratulate the BBFC on its often unpleasant work.

It is also clear that the system of classification that the 1984 Act introduced is well understood and well regarded by the public. Independent research conducted on behalf of the BBFC shows that 71 per cent. of adults make use of the classification ratings of films to guide their purchasing decisions at least some of the time, and that 46 per cent. do so before purchasing video games. In addition, out of a total of 3,900 film viewing occasions, those surveyed agreed 99 per cent. of the time with the BBFC's classifications. It is a good organisation, implementing a good piece of legislation that works, and it was with considerable regret, therefore, that we discovered in August 2009, during our preparations for the Digital Economy Bill, which, as hon. Members will know, is in another place for consideration, that the 1984 Act was no longer enforceable under UK law. The situation arose because of a procedural failure in 1984 to notify the European Commission of the Act's provisions in draft under the technical standards directive. I keep stressing "in draft" because we have to repeal the 1984 Act and revive it so that it can be notified in draft; we cannot notify an existing Act.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

In case anyone wishes to make a party political point about the issue, it may be worth noting that the legislation was not notified in draft because it was a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. Will the Minister elaborate on how the error was discovered in 2009 and, to return to the point, on when the Cabinet Office intends to conclude its audit of all Acts passed since 1984 in terms of their compliance with the technical standards directive?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I do not want to make a party political point out of the issue. That would be silly, and I am not going to do so. Nobody involved with the legislation then is a Member now, but I think that another reason why the error might have occurred is that the technical standards directive came in early in 1984 and the Video Recordings Act came out slightly later. They almost overlapped in their inception.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

If I can help the Minister, I should say that the directive came into force on 28 March 1983 and the Bill was introduced on 11 November 1983, meaning that it had to be notified to the European Commission in about August 1983. The directive was therefore very new, and I think that Graham Bright, who introduced the Bill as a private Member, might be forgiven for not being completely à point with European law.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his extraordinary parliamentary erudition, and for his help on the matter.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

May I further help the Minister? While he is being extremely generous to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) on the Conservative Front Bench in relation to what happened in 1983 and 1984, will he also bear in mind that in 1993, many years later, the 1984 Act was considered again in great detail, when it was amended by the then Conservative Government, whose current party leader was at that time an adviser to the then Home Secretary? Surely by 1993 the omission should have been noticed.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, and he makes it more difficult for me to resist making cheap party political points at the expense of the Opposition. Nevertheless, I shall resist.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

Just to be helpful, I might point out that the mover of the amendment to the Act in 1993 was of course Mr. David Alton, so perhaps the conclusion is that we all bear some responsibility.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I shall move on to answer the question from the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) about how the omission was discovered last year. The answer is that, as part of our preparation for the Digital Economy Bill, we were involved in a similar process of notifying to the European Commission the Bill's amendments to the 1984 Act-a similar process to that which the hon. Member for Bath suggests one might have thought would have happened in 1993 and 1994. On this most recent occasion during that process, it was noticed that the original Bill had not been notified.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

Will the Minister help me? I think that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, has inadvertently been helpful, which is not a phrase that I often like to use-but we are all in the process of engaging with the Liberal Democrats. If the 1984 Act was amended in 1993, was the amendment notified to the European Commission; and is that aspect of the Act, therefore, still enforceable?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

My understanding is-I am pretty clear-that none of the Act is enforceable, because the original legislation was not notified to the Commission in 1983-84.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

After everyone has been so helpful, I do not want to be unhelpful, but I am still puzzled, because the Library research paper on the Bill before us states that

"the Government's legal advice appears to be that previous convictions under the 1984 Act are safe."

If there is a loophole and the 1984 Act is unenforceable, I do not understand how previous convictions under it can be safe. Will the Minister explain that point, please?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The convictions are safe in the sense that any attempt to seek any restitution against them would almost certainly fail in court. For instance, any appeal would be an out-of-time appeal, after 21 days, and therefore, although it would be technically possible to mount an out-of-time appeal, it would be very unlikely to succeed. If a criminal mounts an appeal because they have discovered a brief loophole in the law, they are pretty unlikely to receive a sympathetic hearing from a court. All our advice suggests that for a range of reasons like that, it is very unlikely that criminals and disreputable people will be able to exploit the loophole by seeking such restitution.

The purpose of the Video Recordings Bill, therefore, is very simple. It is designed only to repeal and revive the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 in order to make the criminal offences in the Act enforceable again. Until that has been done, no new prosecutions can be made under the Act and prosecutors cannot oppose appeals made in time against convictions. This means that publishers of videos, DVDs and 18-rated and R18-rated video games can distribute their goods free of any classification restrictions. Retailers can sell classified and unclassified adult material to any person, regardless of age, with limited statutory powers to stop or prosecute them. There is also a danger-although we think it slight-that past convictions may be challenged.

To their credit, the reputable makers and distributors of videos and DVDs have continued to submit their films for classification voluntarily, and reputable retailers have continued to abide by the age classification restrictions. Trading standards officers throughout the country, however, are coming across more and more cases of people seeking to exploit the loophole. Officials are uncovering more and more cases of unscrupulous people selling unclassified material or age-restricted material either by post or in outlets that are not licensed sex shops.

For example, law enforcement officials in Milton Keynes have had to return 550 seized unrated DVDs to a seller who is now free to supply them until the Act becomes enforceable again. To be clear, unrated means beyond the R18-potentially very unpleasant material. In Bournemouth, trading standards officers were unable to prevent a newsagent selling R18 and unrated hard-core sex videos, while in Conwy, law enforcement officers were unable to deal with seven cases of supplying 18-rated videos to children. In Edinburgh, five outlets supplying adult material could not be pursued by trading standards officers. These examples are just a few of the many being discovered by trading standards officers and law enforcement officers in every part of the country.

The longer this legal loophole is allowed to exist, the greater risk of harm being caused to the public by the unrestricted circulation of this kind of material and the greater the potential for the most extreme material to be supplied to children. It is therefore vital in helping to restore the public's faith in Parliament and the video classification system that we act quickly to restore the important public protections contained in the 1984 Act.

The Bill was notified to the European Commission on 10 September 2009 and the three-month notification period expired on 11 December 2009. The fact that we introduced the Bill on 15 December-the earliest possible date after the expiry of the notification period-and are using the fast-track procedure is a measure of how important the Government view the need for the VRA to be made enforceable again.

I know of the concern in this House and in the other place about the use of the fast-track process for legislation and the dangers involved in it, but the Video Recordings Bill provides a classic example of why fast-track legislation still has a role to play. There is a real problem that needs to be dealt with quickly in order to restore important public protections. The Bill does not introduce any new provisions beyond those with which we are all familiar and that have been successfully enforced for 25 years.

The Bill could hardly be simpler, consisting of only two clauses and a schedule. Clause 1(1) repeals the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 and then immediately revives them. Clause 2 refers simply to the short title of the Bill, its commencement and extent. The schedule contains transitional provisions that are designed to ensure that the repeal and revival of the VRA provisions do not change their effect or the effect of other documents that refer to them-in other words, it ensures that all administrative decisions taken previously under the Act still remain valid in law. This is needed to ensure both that all films do not need to be submitted for classification again and a seamless transition once the 1984 Act is revived.

In order to close the period during which offences cannot be prosecuted as soon as possible, the Bill is intended to come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Thus, in summary, the Bill does not introduce any new provisions or offences into the 1984 Act; it simply restores a system of classification that has been in operation for the last 25 years, which has worked to stop the circulation of the worst kind of video material. It is a system that is well understood and liked by a clear majority of the public and the industry. The Bill is essential to ensure proper protection of the public from the inappropriate supply of violent and sexual video material by making the offences under the 1984 Act enforceable again.

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I hope that I can call on the support of the whole House to ensure its speedy passage through all its stages in the House of Commons today.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I am grateful for this chance to support the Government in seeking to pass the Video Recordings Bill. As the Minister noted in his opening remarks, we are here for some very peculiar reasons. In theory, we are debating a Bill that was enacted as long ago as 1984. The then Video Recordings Bill was introduced by Graham Bright, the then Member for Luton, South, who rose to become an extremely successful Parliamentary Private Secretary to an extremely successful Prime Minister, John Major. He introduced the Bill on 11 November 1983.

As is well known, the Bill was intended to address the problem of what were then known as "video nasties". Because videos were unclassified, it was perfectly legal to sell any kind of video without any restriction whatever. As the Minister noted, in the mid-'80s, video recorders-and therefore videos-were becoming all-pervasive, so there was a need to act because videos showing all kinds of unmentionable acts were freely available.

The approach adopted by Mr. Bright in dealing with this problem was ingenious. He introduced a system of classification, and what became illegal was not the selling of an obscene video but the selling of an unclassified video, or a classified video to an inappropriate audience. The test of whether somebody was guilty under the Act was extremely clear-cut. Before the Act was passed, the problem had been that the only available sanction to stop a video nasty was the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Almost by definition, that was a subjective and difficult test to pass. In fact, there were cases of juries clearing people who were accused of selling an obscene video because the jury clearly took the view that it was not obscene. Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 it was made clear that one could not sell an unclassified video. I shall go on to explain why the Act has been so successful-largely because the British Board of Film Classification, to which I pay tribute, has been extremely successful in implementing its provisions.

If any hon. Member has the time over the weekend-or perhaps they will have had time over the Christmas break-it is worth revisiting the debates on the Video Recordings Bill in 1983 and 1984. I am extremely grateful to Mark Taylor from the Library, who pulled out the Committee stages for me to have a look at. The Minister and I were both doing our O-levels at the time, so we may not have been that focused on the debates then taking place.

As the Minister said in his opening remarks, there is a salutary lesson here about how quickly technology changes and moves on. It almost quaint to read those debates, with people referring to the video recording industry as a "new and dynamic" industry; I suspect that most video recorders are now discarded or hidden away in attics. The Minister says that it will be a considerable time before film downloads overtake box sets, but I suspect that in a few years' time, DVD machines will be going the same way and we will be downloading films directly on to our televisions. I will come back to that problem in a few minutes.

The debate on the Bill took place at a time when the technology revolution was just beginning. It is breathtaking to see the changes that have subsequently taken place in our lifetimes.

It is worth reviewing some of the arguments for and against the Bill at the time. For example, there was a proposal to license video stores, which was rightly rejected as bureaucratic. There was also a debate about- [Interruption.] There are noises off, Mr. Speaker, which are distracting me from my carefully drafted speech. It is interesting to note-well, it is interesting to me, if not to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)-that there were also calls for self-regulation of the video recording industry and suggestions that it should be given time to come up with its own system of regulation. I view that as interesting, because there are echoes of our current debate as the Digital Economy Bill goes through the other place and we are debating whether it is appropriate for the Government to regulate on internet piracy or whether there should be self-regulation by the internet service providers. As the Minister knows, we support the Government in bringing in legislation to crack down on internet piracy.

The debate was notable for other contributions, notably a maiden speech by a new Conservative Member for Norwich, which brings to mind the excellent maiden speech recently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Chloe Smith). The highlight of the Second Reading debate at the time was a fine and intelligent speech by one Matthew Parris, the then Member for West Derbyshire, who showed the flair and imagination that have been such a hallmark of his subsequently glittering career in journalism. I say all this in the full expectation that I will be written up in exceptionally glowing terms in his column in The Times this Saturday. While this House was sad to lose Mr. Parris, its sorrow was tempered by the election of his successor, who I may say has served the people of West Derbyshire, and this House, exceptionally ever since.

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

Order. The hon. Gentleman's very blatant tribute to his own Chief Whip is of great interest to the House but of no relevance to the Video Recordings Bill.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I would never dare to argue with you, Mr. Speaker, but I am a little hurt that you have stolen my punchline. I was, of course, referring to my Chief Whip, but there we go. There goes the joke. I had asked for the entire Committee stage of the previous Bill to be photocopied for me, and I was going to refer in some detail to those proceedings in 1983 and 1984. However, I shall take my lead from you, and pass over what I intended to be an extensive discussion of them.

As the Minister has made clear, someone forgot to tell Europe-or, more accurately, the European Commission-that the previous draft Bill should have been referred to the Commission under Council directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983. That directive is more colloquially known-and referred to in my local pub, where we speak of little else-as the technical standards directive. That failure to refer the Bill to the Commission meant that the legislation became unenforceable. This was an error of Keystone Cops proportions, although part of me would like to think that it was a deliberate attempt to subvert the European project. I like to think of the Act standing alone, redoubtable on the white cliffs of Dover, saying something colloquial to the European Commission, such as, "We'll deal with our own pornographers, thank you very much." Sadly, however, this one last redoubt that has stood against Europe for the past 25 years is to be snuffed out today, because somebody told the Commissioners that we had not referred it to them.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I might have misheard the hon. Gentleman. Will he confirm that his understanding of the Bill that we are about to pass is that it does not involve Brussels imposing something on the UK, but instead achieves a position in which we can prevent the importation of material from other EU countries that does not have the certification that we require? Is this not therefore a case of the UK imposing things on other EU countries, and not the other way round?

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

No, that is not my understanding of the Bill. As I understand it, an Act passed by a sovereign Parliament is not an Act unless it has been approved by Brussels.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Act remains an Act: an Act of this Parliament is an Act of Parliament when it is an Act of Parliament. All that is in question is the enforceability of the Act, which remains on the statute book.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

We are in danger of descending into sophistry. It is an Act of Parliament, but it is a toothless one unless it is referred to Brussels. That is the situation that we are in, but we are not having a debate on Europe and its encroaching powers. Through interventions on the Minister, we have asked how many other Acts of this British Parliament might be toothless, and we look forward to him telling us when the Cabinet Office will report on its audit of every single Act passed since the technical standards directive was put into force.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest-but he has not yet told us what grades he got in his O-levels.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

rose-

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

That was a sort of rhetorical question. I am sure you would have something to say if we were to discuss that, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned an audit of all the Acts since 1984. Does he have information to suggest that other Acts of Parliament have breached the European rules, or is he just speculating that some might have done so? It would involve an awful lot of work if the Cabinet Office were to go through every single Act of Parliament.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

The Cabinet Office would not have to go through every single Act of Parliament. It would have to go through only those that have an effect on trade and the free movement of goods. The hon. Member for Bath made the point that the Act restricts the trade in videos and therefore has to be referred to the European Commission. I hear what the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is saying, however. I know that his Government are keen to save money to protect front-line services, as they say, and perhaps he thinks that the Cabinet Office exercise is a waste of money. Nevertheless, it is going ahead, as the Minister made clear. The Minister hesitated in his response, saying that as far as he knew, no other Act had breached the requirement for reference under the technical standards directive. However, the audit is taking place, and we would like to know when it will be completed.

I want to say a word about fast-track legislation. I said that we supported the Government's aim of getting the Bill through, but I take note of the remark made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that they should not assume, simply because we agree that this Bill is suitable for fast-track legislation, that any other Bill that they decide to fast-track will receive the same assent. However, we agree that this Bill should be fast-tracked, for the reason that the Minister gave-that an important Act that protects the public from unpalatable video content remains unenforceable and is being breached up and down the country. People are aware of the loophole and, as the hon. Member for Bath said, if we delay any longer, the breaches will continue. The Minister said that this would be an effective piece of legislation that could be implemented quickly; it was also debated extensively when it was first introduced.

I paid tribute earlier to the work of the British Board of Film Classification, and it is worth spending some time explaining to the House how the board goes about implementing the legislation. It awards an appropriate classification to video works, it provides clear consumer advice, and when necessary it removes material from a work. In extremis, it refuses to classify a work. I think that about 4 per cent. of videos submitted to the BBFC are unclassified or have cuts made. That figure is down from a peak of about 12 per cent. when the Act was first introduced, which shows that the Act works not only through the direct intervention of the BBFC but by implication, in the sense that people are keen to comply with the BBFC's guidelines before submitting a work to it.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

My hon. Friend puts a positive interpretation on those statistics, but will he concede that they might contain a slightly less positive message? The fact that the number of cuts and rejections has gone down so massively in the past 20 years might mean that although the content of the videos is just as bad as it ever was, the BBFC is now less keen to cut them than it was then.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I certainly concede that point. One can look at this from the perspective that the glass is half full, or that it is half empty, because tastes have changed. An example is the film "A Clockwork Orange", which was originally banned but is now available on video.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I believe that "A Clockwork Orange" was not banned, but withdrawn by Kubrick, because he was publicly blamed for certain attacks that took place, which the press attributed to the influence of his film.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I take my hon. Friend's correction. I cannot think of another film off the top of my head, but perhaps "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" might-

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

"Straw Dogs".

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

"Straw Dogs" is one that I almost mentioned. I have not seen it, but it was in the BBFC's briefing to me. I shall come to that film in a moment, as it is covered in my speech.

Obviously tastes change, and some films and videos that were unpalatable 20 years ago are now more palatable. For example, "Straw Dogs", an X-rated 1971 film that was originally rejected for video release, was accepted uncut for video release in 2002 with an 18 classification. "The Exorcist" was released uncut on video in 1999, and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"-

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

Order. I think we have had enough of this-

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

rose-

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for four and a half years. I am sure he knows that he needs to resume his seat. I was sceptical as to whether we needed to go round the legislative course of 25 years ago, but I am absolutely certain that we need no further evidence of the hon. Gentleman's expertise in cinema.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I concede your point, Mr. Speaker, but, yet again, you have torpedoed my next joke. Depressingly, I was going to cite the example of "Bridget Jones's Diary", a DVD that was, surprisingly, censored by the BBFC. I was going to make the joke that unless we pass this legislation rapidly, Richard Curtis might start putting out unsuitable DVDs, but I now I shall not.

The BBFC works closely with law enforcement agencies by providing classification evidence to ensure successful prosecutions. That co-operation is necessarily on hold while the Video Recordings Act 1984 is unenforceable.

There were several notable interventions in the Minister's opening remarks about the effect of the unenforceability of the Act on previous prosecutions, which fills me with concern. As far as I am aware, something like 2,600 prosecutions have been successfully carried out under the Act. He says that his Department has received legal advice that if people seek to overturn convictions they are unlikely to succeed, but I do not share his confidence. It appears to be based on legal advice that he and his Department have received that an appeal against conviction would be out of time. However, I assert to him that an individual seeking to overturn a previous conviction would not simply appeal against it-by definition, they would have been prosecuted under a unenforceable Act, so there would be nothing to appeal against. Instead, they would seek to set it aside. I am concerned about that.

The House is not in the habit of passing retrospective legislation. The last Conservative Government passed one piece of retrospective legislation-the War Crimes Act 1991, which allowed people living in this country who were guilty of war crimes in the second world war to be prosecuted. It is not a habit that we want to get into, but I counsel the Minister that his legal advice appears to be extremely ropy. For example, if a person has been convicted under an unenforceable Act-we concede that the 1984 Act is unenforceable-what do they do about their Criminal Records Bureau file? A CRB check on someone could show that they had been convicted under the Act, but they might want to get rid of that and apply to have the conviction set aside. Is it appropriate that the CRB should put convictions under the Act on people's files? That concerns me.

I would also be interested to know what the legal advice on compensation is. Of course, if people seek to set aside their convictions, that is one thing, but seeking compensation from the Government is quite another. What advice has the Minister received about what compensation might be available to people who seek to set aside those convictions? My hope-I do not have the necessary expertise in such matters-is that compensation would be de minimis if it was given at all.

The key point that the Minister tried to get across in his speech, and which we support him on, is that the 1984 Act is very much a live Act: it works and it is effective. Unlike many of the Acts and Bills that we debate in the House-one thinks of the Fiscal Responsibility Bill, which we debated yesterday-the Act has a real impact on consumers every day. He cited the opinion polls that show that 71 per cent. of people make use of classifications under the Act. There is mandatory labelling on the front and back of cases and any other surface of 5 cm or more, and videos must carry the BBFC age rating in words in a prominent position and in a specific size. In the case of box sets that contain differently rated works in one package, the classification of the highest-rated work must be printed on the outer packaging. The vast majority of video distributors include consumer advice to provide additional detail about a work's rating to enable parents to make an informed choice about their children's video viewing, so the ratings empower the consumer, particularly parents.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I am delighted that the Minister raises the issue of children. Presumably he is fully behind the recommendations of Tanya Byron. Those over 18 may choose whatever video or DVD they want, but we need to have measures in place that will protect children and young people from having access to violent video games.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

We need to protect children from access to violent video games, films, television shows and books. The issue is not the genre-be it video game, film or video-but the content. That is what we must protect children from. I am flattered that the right hon. Gentleman already considers me to be a Minister. If he is that worried about a future Conservative victory, I hope he will join the rebellion currently being instigated by a number of ex-Ministers for a secret ballot-

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I believe the hon. Gentleman has enjoyed a fair amount of latitude already this afternoon, and I seriously urge him to stick to the confines of the debate before us.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The 1984 Act has been effective in dealing with under-age sales, and it is a vital tool in helping to ensure that children and young people do not gain access to products that are harmful and detrimental to their safety and welfare. Picking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), it is interesting to note that in the past two years, more than 200 cases of under-age sales have been prosecuted. That is an example of how the Act is working, and in particular of how it is being implemented to protect children. We often talk about protecting children in the abstract, but the Act is a real, live example.

The Act helps to deal with unofficial and counterfeit goods, and it is used to prevent supplies of counterfeit or pirate works and as a means of detecting unclassified works. It is therefore effective against unofficial products being put into circulation, and therefore helps to protect legitimate businesses from unscrupulous trading. The BBFC frequently gives evidence to the Federation Against Copyright Theft and the Trading Standards Institute on whether a seized work has been classified by it for distribution in the UK. Even if traders of pirated products are not prosecuted on behalf of rights owners for conspiracy to defraud, or for copyright or trade mark infringement, actions can still be taken for illegally supplying an unclassified work or a classified work to an under-age person.

The Act helps to deal with the problem of parallel imports of video works from other countries. Those are normally in breach of it because they have not been classified or labelled for UK distribution. That is extremely useful to UK retailers and distributors who have acquired licences for sale in the UK and who wish to protect their businesses from unlicensed imports. The point again is that often, prosecutions are the tip of the iceberg. The fact is that people who seek to import videos and distribute them illegally in this country are put off by the provisions of the Act.

The Act can be a gateway to the discovery of other serious offences. Often, investigations that begin with a breach of the Act unearth other criminality such as obscene images, the proceeds of crime or illegitimate business dealings. It can therefore help to uncover unscrupulous businesses.

As the Minister indicated, although the Act remains unenforceable, it is heartening that legitimate makers of videos continue to comply with its provisions. Responsible members of the home entertainment industry, which includes distributors belonging to the British Video Association and games publishers, have continued to submit their works to the BBFC for classification. However, the BBFC is concerned that others are not doing so.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I join the hon. Gentleman in his praise of the industry. Is he aware that in fact, the number of products that have been submitted for classification since the problem arose has dropped significantly? There must be a concern that material is being produced and sold inappropriately and unclassified.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were not in the Chamber when Mr. Speaker continued to anticipate my every remark. Now that he has left the Chamber, that role has been taken by the hon. Gentleman, because I was about to say that the BBFC is concerned that submissions have decreased significantly. There was an 11 per cent. reduction in September 2009 and 20 per cent. in October 2009. He is not even listening to me now, but there was a reduction of 38 per cent. in only the first half of November 2009. That is an extremely worrying trend.

There are numerous examples of distributors blatantly disregarding the law because they know that it is unenforceable. For example, in Bournemouth, trading standards officers cannot prevent a newsagent from selling R18 and unrated hardcore sex videos or two unlicensed sex shops from selling unrated DVDs. There are examples throughout the country: Brent, Cheltenham, Conwy, Dorset, the highlands, Havering, Islington, Luton, Manchester, Milton Keynes, Powys and Southampton have all reported examples of retailers distributing unclassified works because they know that the 1984 Act is not enforceable. As the Under-Secretary said, some local authorities are even being pursued through the courts for carrying out in good faith what they believed to be their statutory obligations.

We have made it clear from the outset that we support the Government's intention to pass the Bill as quickly as possible. Let me mention only two concerns on which, in a perfect world, we wish the Government had acted.

First, as the hon. Member for Bath said, the Digital Economy Bill will amend the 1984 Act and bring video games into a system of statutory classification using the European rating system known as PEGI-pan European game information. Broadly speaking, hon. Members of all parties support that. Everybody recognises that video games should be classified under a statutory system. The vigorous debate that took place between the British Board of Film Classification and PEGI about the appropriate rating system was played out and a conclusion, which Conservative Members support, was reached.

However, we assert that the Under-Secretary could have inserted relevant provisions in a draft Bill, which could then have been submitted to the European Commission in September and returned to the House to be enacted. To pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made, although we support fast-tracking the Bill, we would have supported including provisions in a draft that was submitted to the European Commission and extending the debate on the measure. It need not have taken long-we could have had Second Reading today, Committee tomorrow and Third Reading next week.

I make that point because there is serious concern about the time available for the Digital Economy Bill. It is debatable whether we will even get a chance to discuss those provisions in this House. If the Under-Secretary responds by claiming that including those draft provisions in the Bill that we are discussing would have made a debate impossible, I say wait and see whether we even have a debate on those provisions, if and when they come before us through the Digital Economy Bill. I am not sending a hidden message. Conservative Members intend to co-operate on the Digital Economy Bill-although we take issue with some of it, it contains many important provisions that help the digital economy. However, in the circumstances, with the Prime Minister on the verge of toppling because of a rebellion by his-

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I repeat my earlier remarks to the hon. Gentleman and remind him that we are dealing with one Bill at a time. At the moment, we are considering the Video Recordings Bill.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

That is absolutely correct.

There is some concern that music and sports videos remain exempt from classification. Again, that exemption could have been removed in a draft submitted to the European Commission. There is overwhelming support for removing the exemptions. There is not a shred of logic or intellectual credibility to keeping music and sports videos exempt. Why should something be exempt just because it is of a particular genre? As I said to the right hon. Member for Leicester, East, we are worried about inappropriate content being distributed to minors and adults. Whether it is in a video game, DVD, film, a music video or something related to sport is irrelevant. The exemption is bizarre. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees-he is nodding.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I do not agree that we are talking about the same thing. A film with inappropriate content is not interactive. The point about video games, which is backed up by research from America, is that the player is part of the process. Players shoot and stab people in a video game, and that is different. I accept that inappropriate content is wrong, wherever it is found, but video games are different.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I continue to assume that the right hon. Gentleman is against hard-core pornography and offensive content. For example, a video by the band Slipknot, which includes self-mutilation by teenagers, remains unclassified. Before we get into a debate on censorship, I am not saying that that content cannot be viewed by responsible adults, or that the video by Mötley Crüe, which depicts a George Bush lookalike with a prostitute, could not be viewed by responsible 18-year-olds. However, I think that all hon. Members agree that it should not be viewed by a 10-year-old, and should therefore be classified so that parents know, if their 10 or 11-year-old comes home saying, "I've got the latest Mötley Crüe video," exactly what it could contain. It is extraordinary that music and sports videos are exempt. We will continue to press for the removal of that exemption. However, we are where we are; the Bill has been introduced in its current form and we do not intend to stand in its way.

I end with a wider point about what the Bill omits, and ask whether we are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted and whether, by considering a Bill that applies to a venerable Act-25 years old-we are missing the point. I ask that because of the advent of the internet and convergence. Although the Under-Secretary said in his opening remarks that experts who retail such products believe that it will be "some considerable time" before the download of film overtakes the purchase and rental of DVDs, I counsel that that "considerable time" could be considerably shortened when one considers, for example, YouTube, which grew from nothing to being a global company in 18 months.

To pick up on the comments of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East about the Byron report, which focuses on keeping children safe in a digital world, I am genuinely interested in the Under-Secretary's thoughts about how and whether content should be regulated online. As he knows, an increasing number of video distributors submit their films for classification to the BBC for an online rating, but obviously more unscrupulous dealers do not do that. The legislation does nothing to ensure that there are any sanctions against people who distribute videos online.

The opportunity to respond to a Second Reading debate for the first time from the Front Bench has been thoroughly enjoyable. It has been a rollercoaster ride. There were a couple of clashes with Mr. Speaker, who took the punchlines of my best jokes, but I hope that I have covered the ground comprehensively and shown the reasons for the Opposition's support for the Government's fast-tracking the Bill today.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey). I congratulate him on his maiden Second Reading speech from the Front Bench. It was fascinating and I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were not present for the whole contribution. I feel-and I am sure the House feels-that we know so much more about the hon. Gentleman, especially his encyclopaedic knowledge of all the films and videos that have been produced in the past 25 years.

It must be a Minister's worst nightmare to arrive at his desk in Whitehall to be told by civil servants that an important Act is effectively illegal. An Act is an Act, as the Minister has said, but the news in respect of this Act was that it had not passed through the necessary European legislation hoops and that therefore the prosecutions under it for the past 26 years were, in effect, invalid. I do not know whether the Minister who is present was the Minister who was told that news, but if so, I would love to have been in his office as he received the advice. I must commend him, however, as I think he has dealt with this situation in an extremely calm and cool manner throughout, from how he responded to the first announcements just before Christmas to the way in which he has presented the Bill to the House. It is right for the Government to use this special method to try to get the legislation through the House, because the worst possible thing to do on discovering that an Act of Parliament is not, in fact, enforceable would be to allow that Act to remain on the statute book and individuals and companies to be prosecuted, and then to try to work out at a later stage exactly what to do about that very unfortunate circumstance.

The Minister has given us an assurance that the Government have brought the matter before the House as best they could in the circumstances. We will therefore deal with all the Bill's stages this afternoon, and, judging by the number of Members attending this debate, we should deal with them speedily. By doing so, we might provide more time for discussion of the Digital Economy Bill, as the hon. Member for Wantage said.

In common with every other Member who has spoken thus far, I of course agree that we need to correct the error made 26 years ago, and I commend the Minister on not seeking to make party political points about why it occurred, as this could have happened to any Minister. We do not expect Ministers to have encyclopaedic knowledge of how the European Union works. Ministers operate in accordance with the advice given to them, and clearly over the past 26 years advice was given to Ministers suggesting that the legislation was fully in keeping with European law and was therefore enforceable.

I hope that when the Minister sums up he will tell us in greater detail precisely what will happen to those who have been prosecuted; he alluded to that during the discussion of the allocation of time motion. The question of compensation has been mentioned, and when this was announced I received a telephone call from the home affairs editor of The Times telling me what had happened. There is genuine concern among those who have been prosecuted over the past 26 years as to whether their convictions were valid, whether the sums paid in fines will have to be repaid to them and whether they might be re-prosecuted as a result of the new legislation. I am sure that it will not be retrospective legislation. We cannot say that everybody who has been prosecuted under the 1984 Act will have to be re-prosecuted-we do not know. It is extremely important that there is clarity on such issues if the House is to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and allow them to pass the Bill in the space of one day-or a few hours, in fact.

Let us be clear about what we wish to know. Will those who have been prosecuted be entitled to compensation, and if so, how much will they get? Will they be re-prosecuted? Do their convictions still stand, or are they expunged? What is the precise legal nature of this situation? I am sure that the Minister will have sought the advice of the Attorney-General and that she will have been very clear about where the Government stand in respect of an Act of Parliament that is found to be unenforceable. When the Minister sums up, I hope that he will tell us the answers to those questions.

My second point is about the general debate concerning video games. I am keen not to stray beyond the measures of the Video Recordings Act 1984, but there were some very interesting comments from the Front Benches about their commitment to ensuring that the thriving and innovative video games industry in the United Kingdom, and particularly in London, survives. I am not against what is being proposed, and I have never been in favour of censorship; I have always been very clear that those who are aged 18-plus should be able to buy and watch whatever video games they want. Those who are not sufficiently old should not be able to do so, however, and those retailers who are prosecuted under this Act must be dealt with very severely indeed.

I say that because I disagree with the hon. Member for Wantage, in that I do not believe that watching a film is the same as participating in a video game. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have very young grandchildren, and I have children aged 14 and 12. A huge amount of research has been done on the issue, and it has been found that half of all eight to 11-year-olds use the internet without adult supervision. I do not know how many Members present have children or grandchildren aged between eight and 11, but it is a real worry that a half of those in that age group are not supervised by adults when using the internet.

Some parents take the home computer out of their children's rooms and put it in a room where everyone has access to it so that they can watch over what their children are doing online. Parents have different ways of dealing with that issue, but the fact is that watching a violent film is different from participating in a video game. If a young person gets hold of "Modern Warfare 2", for example, they will be asked to participate in a terrorist attack; they will be asked to shoot at civilians in Moscow airport as part of the game. That is why the Russian Government have banned "Modern Warfare 2"; they felt that in an age when we are trying to educate our children about the need to understand the dangers of extreme violence, we should not place in their hands, under the guise of entertainment, games that allow them to act in a violent way.

I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about the Digital Economy Bill coming before this House soon, and it is always the hope of Ministers that such Bills will come to the House from the other place quickly, but I have counted that we have just 35 working days from now until 31 March. Nobody knows when the next general election will be held, of course, but there are only 35 complete working days in which legislation can be addressed in this House.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

The right hon. Gentleman refers to "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2". It is already rated 18 and therefore it is already illegal to sell it to somebody who is under age, without the Digital Economy Bill needing to be passed. I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on the necessity of passing that Bill, but there are already provisions in place that prevent children from playing that game.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

Absolutely, and I would be the last person on earth to question the expertise of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. The hon. Gentleman is right, but there are certain bits of that Bill that it would be helpful if we could implement. That is a recommendation of Tanya Byron. There is absolutely no point in the Government setting up an inquiry and receiving an excellent report from Tanya Byron if they do not then implement the report as a matter of urgency.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on this matter. I know that some people believe that the Liberal Democrats exist to provide consensus, but he is true to type, and he has made it clear that if there are bits of the Digital Economy Bill that we can all agree on, we should go ahead and get on with implementing them. If we can implement the Bill currently under discussion as quickly as we are doing, why should we not do so in respect of other measures? That would be far better than leaving decisions on which Bills will get through to an end-of-Session barney behind the Speaker's Chair between the Chief Whips of both sides. That is not the right way to make legislation. I hope that we can move forward on the issue.

The Byron recommendations must be implemented in full, as doing so will help to strengthen what the Government are trying to do enormously. As far as video recordings are concerned, I pay tribute to what the Government have done over the past few years. There has been a huge leap forward since I first took up this issue, along with others, after young Stefan Pakeerah, from Leicester, was stabbed to death in a park in Leicester in circumstances similar to those found in a video game watched by his killer, Warren Leblanc. I know that the judge in that case said that there was no connection, but the mother of the young boy stabbed to death felt very strongly that there was. Following subsequent meetings with two Prime Ministers and many Ministers, the Government have pushed forward on the matter.

I welcome what the Government have done, but it remains the case that any Member of the House can walk into any video store subject to the Video Recordings Act 1984, pick up a box set and see a tiny-it is still tiny-reference to the age limit for those playing the game. Through various campaigns involving people on all sides, we increased the 18 certificate sign from about the size of a 1p piece to probably the size of a 10p or, possibly, 50p piece. Actually, we have always said that, as with cigarette packets, splashed across the front of a violent video game should be the fact that it has adult content-and good luck to over-18s who wish to buy it! That would bring the fact to the attention of retailers who might, sometimes inadvertently, sell the game to someone under the age of 18.

I was interested to hear the statistics put forward by the hon. Member for Wantage on the number of stores that have been prosecuted. I have been after those statistics for some time. They are good news. The last time some mystery shopping was done-Trevor McDonald on one of his ITV programmes sent in a load of under-18 mystery shoppers-they were sold video games for over-18s, but the stores were not prosecuted. I welcome the fact that the figures are quite high. We are going through the bother of trying to get the Bill through quickly, and we should send out a message that legislation passed by the House will be implemented and that those who break the law will be prosecuted.

Through no fault of the Minister, we find ourselves in the position of trying to repeal and re-enact a law originally passed 26 years ago. That is the fault of neither the Minister nor any other individual. The fact is that the Bill is before us today. I hope that we can make rapid progress and, in the near future, discuss the substance of video games and hear from the Minister on Second Reading of the Digital Economy Bill.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

It is a great honour and privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who serves with such distinction as the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and has a clear personal interest in one of the key issues being debated today-video games. I was particularly delighted that he went out of his way to praise the video games industry. He is absolutely right in doing so: it is a vital part of this country's creative economy, which many people believe could be, with the relevant support, as important to the country's economy as the financial services industries have been. Many people have believed him to be interested only in condemning individual video games-he has gone on several crusades in that respect-so it was good to hear him praising the industry, as well as chastising it for some of the projects it has produced.

I was also pleased that the right hon. Gentleman picked up on a point that I made in an intervention on the Minister. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have done the calculations on the Digital Economy Bill, which makes amendments to the Video Recordings Act 1984, and given the recent announcement that the time allocation in another place will be longer than originally anticipated, it seems highly unlikely that we will be able to get through all the stages of that Bill in this place before the likely date of the general election. Given that there is cross-party support for much of Tanya Byron's excellent report, I hope that the Minister can find ways to ensure that areas on which there is such agreement can be brought forward and put on to the statute book before the election.

I was also pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), to whom I shall turn in a second, about the successful prosecutions of those who have been selling inappropriate videos to under-age people-to children. It is right and proper that we praise, for example, the many excellent trading standards officers in local authorities around the country who have brought those prosecutions so successfully-if only other cases of under-age sales, such as those of alcohol, were prosecuted with such vigour! However, I am delighted that that is happening in this case.

I am always delighted to be involved in debates in which the hon. Gentleman has participated. I confess that it came as a complete surprise to hear that this was his maiden Second Reading speech as a shadow Minister. He seems to have been in his place as a shadow Minister for so long; it demonstrates how scarce is the legislation on matters within the portfolio of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Had we been allowed, many of us would have liked to see legislation such as the Heritage Protection Bill, which would have given him an earlier outing on his party's Front Bench.

The hon. Gentleman occupied the crease for 36 minutes, during which he did a great deal, rightly, to praise the British Board of Film Classification for its work. However, he failed to praise it also for its work in speech writing-I recognised quite a large chunk of his speech from the excellent briefing notes that the organisation provided to all hon. Members likely to be taking part in the debate. However, he raised some important points, and I do not wish to repeat many of them, given that he occupied the crease for so long. We know why we are here and we know what the problem is.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Minister was generous in not seeking to gain party political advantage on where the error occurred, whether in 1984, in 1993 when the first revisions took place, or in 1994 when the second revisions took place. One might have expected the concern now discovered-about the provisions not having been reported to the European Union-to have been discovered at that time. Nevertheless, let us praise the current civil servants in the Minister's Department for finding the problem and helping the Minister and his predecessor to find a way to deal with it swiftly.

Swiftness is the essence of why we are here today. It is vital that we get back on to the statute book, as quickly as possible, legislation that provides protection against the sale of inappropriate material to children, and counters the ability of people to sell pirate DVDs and so on. We have all made it clear that we are keen to support the Minister in his desire to fast-track the legislation back on to the statute book and then, if there is sufficient time-I am increasingly concerned about that-to make subsequent amendments to it in light of, for instance, the introduction of the PEGI system for video games. There is support for that on both sides of the House.

Reference has been made to the case for amending the Video Recordings Act itself, something that we could have done today. It might have delayed proceedings, but it could have been an option. The hon. Member for Wantage made a point about some of his party's proposals for changes to the legislation. I would like an assurance that the issues raised will be dealt with in the Digital Economy Bill, so that there will not be a need to amend the Bill that is before us.

I share the concern expressed by the current shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), about DVDs and videos relating to sport, religion and music that do not carry ratings but which often contain material that many of us would think inappropriate, in particular for sale to young people. Such videos include self-mutilation, erotic dancing, sex toys, drug use and so on.

The Minister's officials have made clear a point that was not picked up by the hon. Member for Wantage. They have said:

"Music, sports or religious videos lose their exemption from classification if they depict sexual activity, mutilation, gross violence or other practices likely to cause offence,"

and that in those circumstances,

"it is for the appropriate enforcement authorities to take action."

The implication is that there is no need for an amendment, because other bits of legislation could be used to prosecute people distributing such material. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that issue, because it is one that those in probably all parts of the House want to be resolved. My concern is to find out the means by which it is going to be resolved, or whether the Minister believes, as his officials appear to be saying, that there is no problem and that action can be taken under existing legislation.

I will not dwell on my second point for any length of time, because it has already been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is no longer in his place, despite the fact that the race meeting to which he was hoping to go today has been cancelled because of bad weather. The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of the degree of complacency-I choose my words carefully-that the Minister appears to have about people who have already been prosecuted under the Video Recordings Act 1984, which we now understand was not correctly enforced.

The Minister seemed to imply that the reason why he had been advised that there would be no redress was that people would be too late to make an appeal. However, as the right hon. Gentleman made clear-I think that the hon. Member for Wantage made a similar point-if the legislation was never enforced correctly, we are not talking about an appeal; rather, I suspect that we are talking about a very different legal process. Others have asked, and I, too, would be grateful if the Minister could give us clearer assurances about why he and his officials are correct in this matter.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

If the law is logical-the Minister will know more than we do about that, because he will have consulted the Attorney-General-and there was, in effect, no conviction because there was no proper legislation, the money from any fines would have to be handed back. If anyone received more than a fine-I am not sure what the penalties are-there would have to be additional compensation.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a compelling point. Indeed, I noticed some months ago that he was reported in one newspaper as saying that

"if the act has never been brought into force, prosecutions under it are void. You cannot prosecute someone and convict them on the basis of legislation that has never been in force".

That seems very compelling indeed. I confess that I have so far heard nothing from the Minister to assure me that the right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, is wrong.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

The right hon. Gentleman is also a distinguished lawyer.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The right hon. Gentleman is distinguished in many regards, but we will leave it to the equally distinguished, relatively new Minister to come up with an answer to those questions.

I want to pick up a point that I mentioned in an intervention and to take it a stage further. As I have said, the Minister rightly praised the many responsible retailers and producers who have continued to behave as if the 1984 Act were still in force. I add my congratulations to them. However, he also pointed out that there are some problems developing. The first, which I mentioned earlier, is that the number of firms seeking classification has fallen dramatically. Year on year to September last year, the reduction was 11 per cent., bearing in mind that for most of the year it was assumed that the 1984 Act was in force. It is therefore not surprising that by October the figure was 20 per cent. or that by the middle of November it was 38 per cent. There was therefore a significant reduction in the number of people who wanted their material classified.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

Is the hon. Gentleman reading from the BBFC briefing?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Indeed, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because when he made that very point earlier, I looked at the briefing and intervened on him. He is absolutely right.

The other point, which has not been touched on so far, is that as I understand it-from the same, excellent brief from the BBFC-a number of councils and their trading standards officers are being pursued through the courts for carrying out what they thought in good faith were statutory obligations under the VRA. Clearly they were wrong: if the VRA was not in force and they were seeking to prosecute people for breaches of a non-existent Act, one can understand that those people might be aggrieved and seek redress from them. My question for the Minister, therefore, is, what assistance are the Government providing to local authorities in that position?

The third point that has already been touched on-again, by the Minister and others-is about the large and growing number of examples of places around the country where breaches, as they would have been if the law had been in force, of the VRA are taking place. The Minister cited Bournemouth, Conwy and Milton Keynes, while the hon. Member for Wantage referred to a number of other places. In Cheltenham, for example, law enforcement officers cannot pursue a newsagent selling R18 and unrated porn DVDs that are displayed above an ice cream display cabinet. In Manchester, trading standards officers have dropped three VRA cases involving 3,000 videos.

However, there are two examples that I want to draw to the Minister's attention in particular. The first is from Powys, where trading standards officers are unable to pursue seven cases of under-age video games sales. The other example is from Brent, where trading standards officers are unable to prosecute three high street stores for selling age-restricted video games to children. In both cases, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we are particularly concerned about the sale of inappropriate material to under-age young people.

Where those prosecutions have been dropped, I wonder whether the Department has taken note of its own explanatory notes, which point out that, even with the 1984 Act no longer on the statute book, there are other bits of legislation, such as the Obscene Publications Act 1959, that in certain circumstances could be used in respect of the sale of material to under-age people. Being interested in that point, I looked at the equally excellent briefing produced by the Library. In paragraph 2.2 of that briefing, the Minister will find the following reference to how the 1959 Act might be used in such circumstances:

"The 1959 Act proscribes the distribution, circulation, sale, the giving or loan of obscene material. A point to make here is that at least some successful prosecutions under the 1984 Act could well have been made under the 1959 Act: pornographic material that might be legally supplied to an adult could be obscene if given to a child."

The briefing then quotes the case law on that issue, but my question is, given that there are, and will continue to be, outstanding cases where prosecutions could not now be taken forward under the re-established VRA, will the Department seek to provide support to those local authorities concerned, to see whether they could use other bits of existing legislation on the statue book to help bring prosecutions against those who have sought to abuse the loophole created by the error made back in 1984?

I made it clear-I repeat the point now-that the Minister is absolutely right to get the Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible, in order to return the protection that the VRA brings and enable the BBFC and all the enforcement authorities to continue their excellent work to date. For that reason, we give the Minister our full support and hope that we get the Bill through quickly today.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

It is a pleasure to follow all four previous speakers in what has been a remarkably harmonious debate. I do not intend to change that. This is an important measure, and I welcome the fact that the Government have moved so swiftly to close the loophole that has been identified. I will not dwell on how it came about, but I merely observe that the Government are very fond of blaming almost every ill in society on the actions of the previous Government, and this is one of the very few examples where there may be some merit in that claim.

I hope that the Minister will address the questions raised by the previous speakers about the consequences of the loophole, because I share their concern about the status of those who have been convicted over the course of the past 25 years and the possibility of their bringing actions for what now appear to have been unlawful convictions. I hope that he will spend a little more time on that subject when he responds.

I wish to make a few observations about the Video Recordings Act 1984. I always approach any such legislation with some suspicion, as I am fundamentally opposed to censorship. I believe that in a free society it is up to adults to choose what they wish to see, but there are two important qualifications to that. The first is that there will always be some material that is so unacceptable in its violent or explicitly sexual content that it is deemed to be damaging to people to view it. I accept that, and some examples have been given in the debate.

I shall return to that matter, but perhaps more important is the fact that while adults are free to choose, we have always accepted that children require protection. I join right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of the BBFC. It is in the area of age classification that some of the most difficult decisions have to be taken. The film that required perhaps more cuts than any other, some time ago now, was "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", because the distributor was keen that it should be given a certificate that meant children were able to see it. The BBFC felt that it contained inappropriate material, and there was lengthy negotiation. A lot of the controversy about films such as "The Dark Knight" and "Casino Royale" is about whether they should appropriately be 12 or 15.

The virtue of the 1984 Act was that it extended that protection, which already existed in cinemas, to viewing in the home. The Minister gave the statistics on the extent to which viewing in the home has taken off in the past 20 years. When the Act was originally introduced back in 1984, it was accompanied by a degree of what one can only call hysteria about video nasties, and it is worth reflecting on what has happened to some of the most notorious examples of films that were widely cited at that time.

The then Minister, Mr. David Mellor, named three films in the course of the debate. The first was "The Driller Killer", which was banned after the passage of the 1984 Act but then released uncut in 2002, and last night I checked and found that it is available on Amazon for £3.98. The second was "Zombie Flesh Eaters". That, too, was banned under the Act but then released uncut in 2005 and can now be found on Amazon at £5.98. The third was "I Spit On Your Grave", which was also on the list of prosecutable movies until 2001 but was then released, although with substantial cuts made by the BBFC, and is now widely available. Perhaps the most remarkable example is a film that was on the Director of Public Prosecutions' list of films that were banned, Sam Raimi's "The Evil Dead", which at the time was regarded as wholly unacceptable but, indicating how tastes change, two years ago was given away free with copies of The Sun as a promotional move.

There is no question but that tastes change and we have become more liberal, which I welcome. However, as I said, there will always be films that go beyond what is generally regarded as acceptable. The Minister mentioned one particular film, "Grotesque". Two films were banned by the BBFC in 2008. The first was "Murder-Set-Pieces", described as having scenes in which

"a psychopathic sexual serial killer...is seen raping, torturing and murdering his victims".

The second has the unlikely title of "The Texas Vibrator Massacre"-I leave its contents to the imagination of hon. Members. I shall return to those two films in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) made the important point that there are loopholes in the existing legislation, which existed for good reasons at the time. It was not regarded as possible that a video concerning music or sport could be unacceptable. That loophole has undoubtedly been exploited. I hosted a dinner that the BBFC gave in the House just before Christmas, at which it showed us examples of some of the material that is now available in music videos and sports games that does not require certification because of the loophole in the 1984 Act. I understand why the Government did not feel able to address that matter in the Bill, but I share the wish that has been expressed that the loophole should be closed, and I hope that it will be in the Digital Economy Bill.

The second main point that I wish to make is that at the time of the passage of the 1984 Act, the world was completely different. Mr. Graham Bright, the Member who moved Second Reading, said that he defined a video recording as

"a video tape or video disc. It is thus a physical product."-[ Official Report, 11 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 525.]

Of course, it is now not necessarily a physical product. More and more video is being made available through online distribution, which at the time perhaps could not even have been conceived. We are seeking to address that through moves such as those by the BBFC to impose a voluntary system of regulation, but the films that we are concerned about are now very widely available. I return to the two that I mentioned, "Murder-Set-Pieces" and "The Texas Vibrator Massacre". I checked last night and found that both those films are widely available through file sharing sites. An internet search for either with the words "download" or "bit torrent" will bring up any number of sites from which one can obtain them. Equally, they are available through cyberlockers. Both are on Megaupload and RapidShare and can be accessed without any attempt to verify the age of the person downloading them. There is serious concern about how we can continue to protect young people when it is now so easy to obtain such films.

We will debate the matter at greater length when we come to the measures against piracy through illegal file sharing that the Government are proposing to take in the Digital Economy Bill. It is worth remembering that it is not just protection of copyright that is at stake when we consider file sharing. There is equally the concern that it is being used to circumvent the protections that the House has put in place. In the most extreme cases, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, child pornography is being widely distributed through illegal file sharing. That is another reason why I share with other hon. Members the view that it is important that we get the Digital Economy Bill on to the statute book.

Having said that, I agree with the Minister that the majority of distribution of video content will still be through physical product for the foreseeable future, so it is certainly important that the Bill should be passed today and that we should reinstate the protections that we thought were already in place. However, there is a danger that we will be seen to be bolting the front door when the back door is wide open, and we will have to consider that in future.

That leads me to the more general conclusion that I suspect that there is nothing that this House can do to legislate to prevent the distribution of material online from sites that may be located on the other side of the world. When we consider what it is appropriate for people to view, we must remember that that is a matter for adults to decide. The most effective means that we can have to protect children is for parents to exercise responsibility, watch carefully what their children are doing and ensure that they are not obtaining access to content that could be damaging to them. I support the Bill, but I fear that it is beginning to look increasingly old-fashioned and outmoded given the extraordinary pace of development throughout the video sector.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate-and what a pleasure it has been. What a bijou gathering of wisdom and experience this is. Two Select Committee Chairmen, the venerable battler from Bath and my old friend from Wantage have all, in their different ways, made valuable, insightful and often entertaining contributions. Would that it were always thus.

We have already congratulated the British Board of Film Classification on the job that it does, by which we meant the job of classifying films, but I think I ought also to congratulate it on the job that it does in lobbying Members of Parliament and providing briefing for these debates. Rarely can the entire participating body in a debate have been so thoroughly and extensively briefed by a single organisation. I visited the BBFC's offices fairly recently and heard its arguments about one or two aspects that we may not see in exactly the same way, but I think we are in accord on most of the issues that Members, in their different ways, have discussed today: that is, the central issues. Let me deal with a few of them, hopefully not leaving out too much but also not using up too much time.

The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) could not quite resist making the anti-European point that the 1984 Act was clearly a single market liberalisation measure leading up to the Single European Act of 1985-that crowning, triumphant, extraordinary piece of Thatcherite European legislation that is the rock on which the European single market is founded, and the basis on which it continues to exist and derive so much prosperity for our countries and our Union. He mentioned several times-and other Members mentioned it as well-that the Cabinet Office had been looking into the issues. I cannot give him any more detail of who in the Cabinet Office has been doing what, but I can tell him that the need to ensure that the omission was an isolated incident and will never happen again is being taken very seriously.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who praised the zeal and efficiency of the DCMS officials who finally discovered the omission and set us on the road to where we have arrived today. If we are not keen-as I am not-to get into the business of allocating blame for causing the problem in the first place, I am sure we can all unite in wholehearted praise for the people who identified it and are helping us to solve it.

The issue of appeals and past convictions is a difficult one. It is not as simple as some Members seem to think. None of the questions involved has been tested in court. To date, the courts have dealt with no attempts to set aside past prosecutions. Successful prosecutions issued before the failure to refer the 1984 Act to the Commission were dealt with through due process, and as such they still stand. The courts are very reluctant to set aside convictions made years ago when the offence was proved and the defendant found guilty under an Act of Parliament passed by the House, only the enforceability of which has been invalidated by a technicality. The Act remains an Act of Parliament. It remains in force. Only the ability of the authorities to enforce is affected by the failure to notify under the technical standards directive.

We think that claims for compensation are very unlikely to succeed. There is no automatic right to compensation, and any legal right to it in these circumstances would be unprecedented. I understand the prism through which Members have viewed the issue. The hon. Member for Wantage claimed that I had been given bad advice. He described the move from the current boxed physical product world to the online world, and said that he was minded to give me better advice on that than I was currently receiving.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

My hon. Friend has taken definitive legal advice from the Attorney-General, has he not? The fact that the granting of compensation in such circumstances is unprecedented does not mean that it is not right. Will he confirm that he was given that advice?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I have taken a great deal of my advice from my officials. I cannot tell my right hon. Friend from whom-in which other parts of Government and which parts of the Government Legal Service-they took advice, but their advice to me has been very clear. Although it is impossible to be certain, there is very little doubt on the issue.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

My hon. Friend's officials may not be legally qualified. They may be the greatest people in the world, but my hon. Friend is a Minister in the Government and the Attorney-General is the chief Law Officer. I am not trying to trip my hon. Friend up; I am merely trying to establish the facts. If there were a problem relating to legality, surely the Department would have contacted the Attorney-General. It is not a secret. A question could have been tabled to the Attorney-General. Did the Government go to the Attorney-General and ask for her advice?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

As I have just told my right hon. Friend, I took advice from my officials. By "my officials" I mean the legal officials in the DCMS. As I have said, their advice was very clear. They also made clear to me that they had taken plenty of legal advice from many different parts of the Government, and that, although there could not be certainty when there was no precedent, there was very little doubt. I am sorry, but I cannot tell my right hon. Friend whether the officials questioned the Attorney-General personally and specifically.

I am not sure whether I have fully covered the question of appeals and compensation, but in the absence of further interventions, I shall proceed to answer the questions about the potential for insertion of what might be described as the PEGI clauses of the Digital Economy Bill, which introduce the PEGI European classification system for video games in this country into this Bill.

One of the fundamental reasons why the House has considered the Bill, and why Opposition parties in both Houses have indicated that they consider it appropriate to fast-track it, is that we are not amending an existing piece of legislation which has been in force for 25 years. If the two main Opposition parties had come to us in advance and said "We think it important to include the PEGI clauses", we might have been able to discuss the matter, but I do not think that that happened. We needed to act swiftly, and, legitimately, to use the special fast-track procedure. Part of the reason for concertina-ing the House's usual precautionary procedures was that we were making no change whatsoever. The point is that we need to get the legislation repealed and revived so that it can be amended during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I apologise for asking a question the answer to which I should really know. I accept the Minister's point as to why the Government have not adopted the PEGI system amendment in this Bill so that we could fast-track it, but can he give me an absolute assurance that, if necessary, the appropriate consultation with the EU is taking place in respect of the PEGI amendment that is being discussed in another place?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance-that is happening, for sure.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

Is it the Government's intention to accept the other amendment that has been tabled to the Digital Economy Bill, which would remove the exemption for sport and music videos?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

As things currently stand, we are not minded to accept that amendment, although I am not averse to talking about it. I take note of the uniformity of view on that matter, on the Labour Benches anyway. However, I know from my recent visit to the BBFC that it takes the strong view that we should make this change, and the BBFC is very influential in these matters.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I should remind the Minister that on Tuesday one of his own Back Benchers, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), is introducing a ten-minute Bill that would bring about this exemption, so there is all-party support for it.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I take that point. I do not have a strong, dogmatic view on this. I have considered it, and on balance I have come down on the side that says that given that it is about where we draw the line, the vast majority of content in music and sport videos does not need to be classified in this way, to the extent that it would be an intolerable burden. That is a reasonable position, and that is where I stand. We are not currently minded to accept an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill to that end, although I do not take a dogmatic view on it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

During my speech I asked the Minister to clarify whether he believes that if such an amendment is not tabled there is still scope for prosecution of that type of material under other legislation.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) kindly referred to that. There is still scope for prosecution under the existing legislation because the exemptions apply only up to a certain level. There are several categories of content, at a certain point of which the exemption lapses. Roughly speaking, something like an 18-level content in a music video would need to be classified.

Hon. Gentlemen mentioned one or two examples of what seem like misclassifications. However, that is the road of argument by second-guessing, anecdote and example, and it does not take us very far. The issue would be about whether the video had been classified appropriately. The power already exists to classify extreme or 18-ish-rated music videos. Their comments are reasonable, but the fundamental point is that the place for us to have this discussion-I have no doubt that we will do so at great length and in considerable detail-is in the Committee proceedings on the Digital Economy Bill.

Several hon. Gentlemen-including the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, with particular erudition and wisdom-talked about the internet and a future in which it will be incredibly difficult to regulate and legislate for these things. I take all those points but merely restate what I said in my opening remarks. The boxed market is still huge and will be so for a considerable period of time, and that is why it is so important that we use this procedure to close the loophole so that we protect the public in general, but particularly children, from the irresponsible retailing of unsuitable and inappropriate material.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Clause 1 — Repeal and revival of provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

If the House will permit me, I will omit, in these circumstances, the usual courtesies attached to the beginning of a Committee stage, and move straight on to speak to the clause, which is at the heart of the Bill.

The purpose of the clause, as stated in subsection (1)(a), is to repeal all the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984, which should have been notified to the European Commission in 1984. Subsection (1)(b) then immediately revives all those provisions, which have now been notified to the European Commission. As a result, it makes them enforceable again in law. The Bill and the 1984 Act were formally notified to the Commission in accordance with the technical standards and regulations directive, and it is necessary for the 1984 Act to be repealed and revived in this way to ensure that all its provisions are fully enforceable again. The failure to notify the 1984 Act was a procedural error under the terms of the directive. The purpose of the Bill is to correct the procedural irregularities arising from that omission and to restore the important public protections that the 1984 Act contains and that the public have come to expect regarding the sale of videos and DVDs.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 — Short title, commencement and extent

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Clause 2 merely sets out the short title, commencement and territorial extent of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Transitional provision

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The schedule sets out the transitional provisions whereby a bridge is built between the 1984 Act spanning the lacuna of the time when the Act has not been enforceable, and into the future, when the status quo ante is restored. It also ensures that all consequent legislation and administration is kept in balance with the new legislation and the previous Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule accordingly agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker- [Interruption.] Understandably, I am being ribbed from sedentary positions by Opposition Members about what I might say about the Bill on Third Reading, given that we have considered it in so many stages so recently.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the Minister use this opportunity to answer the questions asked on Second Reading in respect of advice and support being given to local authorities?

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that; I did fail to answer that question, although not intentionally. Considerable advice and support are being given to local authorities. The Crown Prosecution Service has produced comprehensive guidance on all the relevant issues for local and trading standards administrations, and we are confident that that guidance will equip them to deal with the situation appropriately.

This Third Reading is a conclusion to the Bill. I need only repeat my gratitude to Members on both sides of the House, and particularly to the Opposition parties, which have supported us wholeheartedly as we have used this procedure to get the measure through the House very quickly. We have done that to restore the safeguards for people of all ages, but young people in particular, so that they are not harmed and outraged by the unscrupulous sale of offensive and inappropriate material.

In conclusion, as the Bill moves to the other place, I add a plea to Members there: debate on this Bill is not the appropriate time for discussion of the Digital Economy Bill, or even the detailed provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984. This is an emergency, fast-track measure that, by its nature, could not be fast-tracked if it were amended. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) looks quizzical. In case he was "quizzicaling" at me, I should say that if the Bill were amended it would have to be renotified in draft again, and that would take another three months.

We need to do this quickly. We are grateful for the support that we have had across the House in getting it done quickly. I commend the Bill to the other place in that same spirit of urgency and seriousness.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Sittings of the House

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I beg to move amendment (a), line 1, leave out from 'That' to end and add-

'Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 8, 15, 22 and 29 January; 5 and 26 February; 5, 12, 19 and 26 March; 23 and 30 April; and 7 May.'.

It is a great pleasure, at long last, to get to this debate. I was rather surprised by the abrupt manner in which the Government moved their motion, which it has been clear for a considerable length of time that they do not want to discuss. Now that they have eventually been forced to discuss the matter, it has been moved formally. That is an extraordinary abrogation of their responsibility.

Getting this motion to the Floor of the House has taken an enormous amount of time and effort. It was originally listed on the Order Paper on 23 November 2009. On 30 November 2009, my amendment was on the Order Paper, and since that day the motion has been listed at the end of business every day with no chance of debate; it has been objected to by Members across the House each and every day.

Why on earth have Members had to object every evening to force this lame-duck Government to debate something so important to Parliament? What we have on the Order Paper today is an alteration to Standing Orders, particularly to Standing Order No. 14. I shall briefly remind the House what that Standing Order is about-the allocation of time in the House. Principally, it refers to the time that the Government have to organise business. Paragraph (1) says:

"Save as provided in this order, government business shall have precedence at every sitting."

So except in relation to the other business referred to by two parts of Standing Order No. 14, the Government always control business in the House. That is why we have not been able to debate this motion before.

Standing Order No. 14(2) relates to Opposition days. That has no particular bearing on private Members' business except in one respect. It says:

"two Friday sittings shall be deemed equivalent to a single sitting".

In other words, a Friday is looked on as a half day. In theory, business on Fridays starts at 9.30 am. However, in effect, right at the beginning of the day there is always a motion that the House should sit in private; on occasion I have been responsible for that myself. That involves a Division, which takes up 20 minutes, so we are probably talking about only four and a half hours of business on a Friday. It is that four and a half hours, mentioned in the Government's motion and in my amendment, that I want to discuss today.

The Standing Order protects Parliament and Members of the House by giving 13 Fridays for private Members' business. There is no dispute about that; Standing Order No. 14(4) states:

"Private Members' bills shall have precedence over government business on thirteen Fridays in each session to be appointed by the House."

There are no ifs, buts or ands: 13 Fridays in each Session are to be appointed for that purpose by the House. The problem is that at the moment the House does not have the power to do that; only the Government can bring those 13 days to this House.

There is no mention of applying a pro rata principle to those 13 days because there may be a general election in a particular Session.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

I understand that the hon. Gentleman was elected in 2005, as was I, so he may not remember that it has been standard practice, during parliamentary terms that run to a fifth Session, to pro-rata or reduce the number of days for private Members' Bills. Motions with a similar effect were agreed by the House in both 1991-92 and 1996-97, having been proposed by the then Conservative Administrations. Does the hon. Gentleman want to comment on the fact that that has historically been the case since that time?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I anticipated that that would be the only reasoned objection put forward by the Government. Of course, to say that precedent is the reason why we should do everything the same is to make a pretty hopeless argument; according to that principle, there would be no point in our turning up at all. The hon. Lady has failed to mention the fact that Parliament's situation is totally different now from what it was a year or so ago. Parliament has fallen in the esteem of this country, and one of the reasons for that is the all-powerful Executive. The hon. Lady talked about private Members' business in previous years. I was going to talk about that later, but it seems appropriate to mention it now.

The House of Commons Library has produced a helpful booklet called "The Success of Private Members' Bills", which discusses the number of private Members' Bills that have gone through the House and actually become law. As the House will be aware, in the House of Commons there are three ways in which a private Member may get a Bill into law. One is through the ballot, another is by presentation under Standing Order No. 57, and the last is through the ten-minute rule.

In the period that the hon. Lady referred to, under the last Conservative Government-I am not trying to make a party political point here, but she did refer to it-49 private Members' Bills became law. So far, according to the Library, just eight have become law in this Parliament. That indicates that the Executive are exerting more and more control to get less and less private Members' business through the House. In fact, since the 2005-06 Session no presentation Bills and no ten-minute Bills have become law, whereas under the Conservative Government seven presentation Bills and seven ten-minute Bills became law. That shows that over that period there has been a dramatic decline in the level of success of private Members' Bills in this House.

That is because the Executive have become increasingly powerful, increasingly dominant and increasingly determined to get their own way, which is one of the things that people have objected to. Many people have said that Parliament is not relevant any more because the Executive just steamroller through what they want. Those statistics are a clear indication of that tendency.

One way to redress the balance is to have more time in Parliament for private Members' business: time has to be provided for it. I have already argued that the Standing Order says that 13 Fridays must be provided per Session for such business, which, as I have also argued, equates to six and a half normal days' debate. However, the motion before us, quite unnecessarily, reduces the number of days available in this Session for private Members' Bills. My point is that there is no need to do that.

My amendment would restore the 13 days that the Standing Order says the Government have to provide. It does nothing more than that; it just provides the 13 days, which are all Fridays. It does not adopt the Wright report suggestion of moving some private Members' days to Wednesdays. I have not suggested that any of the sitting Fridays should be in the spring recess-or, for that matter, in the anticipated Easter recess. Of course the Government have not told us when the Easter recess will be, and I am looking to the Deputy Leader of the House to see whether she wants to intervene and enlighten us.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

indicated dissent.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

The Government are deliberately and unnecessarily restricting the voice of individual Members of this House in speaking and getting legislation on to the statute book. As far back as 1949, private Members' Bills went through this House. In that year ballot Bill No. 21 got on to the statute book. So the situation has not always been what we have become accustomed to in the last few years-that only the first couple of Bills have any chance. In 1949 Major Simon Ramsay got the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Bill into law, and he came 21st in the ballot.

I know, however, that this Government believe that everything started in 1997, so let us see whether we can find anything in that era that was low down in the ballot but still got on to the statute book. Interestingly, a Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) got on to the statute book, even though it was No. 19 in the ballot. That cannot be done if the House does not provide time for debate. That was in the 1998-99 Session, so it was in the era since "history" began. In 1999-2000 the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas)-No. 20 in the ballot-got the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill on to the statute book.

What we have today is complete chaos, and an unprecedented situation. The Government have refused to announce the days on which private Members' Bills will be heard. On 16 December, we therefore had the ridiculous spectacle of the Members presenting their Bills having no idea on what dates the Second Reading of their private Members' Bills would be allowed to take place. That is unprecedented, and a complete rejection of Parliament by this Executive, who think they can always get their way.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

The Members who presented their Bills may have had some idea, because they had seen the dates in the motion tabled by the Leader of the House day after day after day. Those dates were, with I think one exception, the ones that they took forward for their Bills.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

The hon. Lady is right-and that was the behind-the-scenes skulduggery. That was the Executive exerting power over Members, saying "You will take these dates," even though this House had not agreed to that.

One Member-the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is in his place-opted to take the next available date, and he was very sensible to do so. If my amendment is approved, his Bill is printed tonight and he lets the Table Office know that he wants to reinstate it, he will have Friday to debate it. So it is not quite correct for the hon. Lady to give the impression that this was a done deal. Yes, other Members were put under pressure. Through that procedure, which is very unfortunate, Members who have chosen their dates cannot move them back. In other words, if my amendment is accepted, Members who have opted for a later date cannot move back to an earlier one.

I have given some thought to that issue, and it seems clear that under Standing Order. No. 57, on presentation of Bills, it is possible for Members to bring very similar Bills that are already known to this House to the back of the Chair. They could then fill the dates that will become available if my amendment is passed.

My amendment does not remove any of the dates that the Government have provided, so people who are satisfied with the date they have can stick to it. However, those who want an earlier date would have an opportunity to take one.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

Just to make the situation clear to those who will read this debate, my hon. Friend is suggesting that three spare Fridays in January-before the first one that the Government have proposed-are available, along with two in March. Is it not fair to say that the Government could easily have tabled a motion to suspend the rule, and taken a vote on it and on my hon. Friend's amendment, at any stage since Parliament returned for the new Session?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Indeed; I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.

Let me address this issue in a little depth. It has not been sprung on the Government. They proposed this change in the Standing Orders-the motion before us-on 23 November.

A number of hon. Members, including me, have outlined the problem that the motion causes. On 26 November, I raised the matter in business questions, pointing out that on that very day the ballot for private Members' Bills was taking place, although nobody knew what dates had been allocated, and that the number of days allocated was set to decrease from 13 to eight. I argued that, in effect, the number had decreased to six because some of the dates that the Government had chosen were so late that clearly the general election would be upon us before they were reached.

On 10 December, the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is in his place, brought up the issue in business questions when he asked why we were not having a debate on it. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who speaks for the Liberals on business of the House matters and who is also in his place, has also raised this question. He has also raised the issue of the Wright Committee report, which has a number of things to say about the allocation of time for private Members' Bills. I might touch on that issue later, if I have time to do so. At the same business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) brought that matter to the House's attention. I must pass on his apologies for not being here today. He would like to be participating in this debate, but the Government have clearly organised the business so that this debate is occurring at the exact time when he is leading a debate on immigration in Westminster Hall. I hope that he will have an opportunity to participate in this debate later.

I have also raised a couple of points of order on this issue; on 16 December, I pointed out that with the exception of that in respect of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, the Second Reading dates that were announced were not confirmed. I asked how Members were to know that they would be able to debate their private Members' business on the given day. I also took the opportunity-there seemed to be no other way of bringing this to the House's attention in any form of debate-to raise the matter in the Adjournment debate on 16 December. I was hoping that that would provide the Deputy Leader of the House with the chance to argue the Government's case on this matter, but again they did not take the opportunity to make a defence of their reason for cutting down the voice of Back Benchers. Today, when they had an opportunity to comment on it at the beginning of this debate, all we heard was "I beg to move". The situation is ludicrous. There is no defence for it and the Government should be ashamed. They should withdraw their motion, but I doubt whether they will do so.

Some people must be wondering whether I have some hidden motive, whether I am secretly hoping to get a Bill through or whether I am down the list on the ballot-I am not in the top 20. They might be wondering whether this is a political thing and whether the Tory party wants to get something through. That is hardly the case because only three of the first 12 private Members who came up in the ballot are Conservatives. There is nothing political about this; this is about Parliament having the opportunity to discuss private Members' Bills.

I am attracted to one or two Bills. I am attracted to the anti-slavery Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and to his work on tackling human trafficking, but that is not the issue here; the issue here is the time available. I am also attracted to a couple of the proposals relating to the Lisbon treaty.

That leads on nicely to why we must have ample time for debate. There are two reasons to introduce a private Member's Bill. The first is that a Member wishes to change the law. There have been numerous cases where worthy causes have been taken up and put on the statute book, but that can be done only when time is available. Time needs to be available for Second Reading, for the Committee stage and for Third Reading. I am afraid that if this motion is passed today, nobody will get any of their Bills on to the statute book.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

As the hon. Gentleman seems to feel so strongly about this allocation of time, can he tell us whether he is implicitly criticising the two previous Conservative Leaders of the House of Commons, who also reduced the number of sitting days in their fifth Sessions? In the 1996-97 Session, the number of sitting days to discuss these matters was also reduced to eight.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am certainly not criticising any past Executive or any past political party. This is not about whether there is a Labour Leader of the House or a Conservative one; it is about the power of the Executive to stop private Members getting a say and getting their business through-that is the issue here.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me what the difference is between reducing, on a pro rata basis, the number of days for considering private Members' Bills to eight in the 1996-97 Session, as proposed by the previous Conservative Leader of the House, and this motion. I see no difference.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I do not wish to criticise people who were in Parliament when I was not if I have no idea about what the situation was at the time. However, as I have said, a lot more private Bills got through under the Conservative Government; the relevant figure is 49. In 1996-97-the period during which the Deputy Leader of the House claims the time available was shortened-14 balloted private Members' Bills got on to the statute book. Whatever arrangements were in place then, there was plenty of time for private Members to get their business through and for Bills to obtain Royal Assent. That just will not happen under the current arrangement. I have outlined the figures, which show that the situation has been hopeless under this Government-I believe that two private Members' Bills got through last year.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

My hon. Friend has dealt with the Deputy Leader of the House's point in a very fair way. What we have not heard from those on the Government Front Bench, either in an intervention or in a speech, is that the issue is whether 8, 15 and 22 January and 19 and 26 March could usefully be provided for the consideration of private Members' Bills. Perhaps it would be worth my observing that having listened to her I find that she is part of a Government-again, I am not being party political-who have claimed that the historic negatives should no longer rule. Most of their claims have not related to something that did not or did happen in the past; they have said that they have looked at new things. What my hon. Friend is suggesting is a new thing and she has not produced a reason why those five days should not be made available.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, with which I agree entirely. The Government would lose nothing by accepting my amendment, which would merely increase the amount of time that private Members would have available to them to bring business to this House. There are two reasons why private Members bring Bills to this House. As I have discussed, one is to get them into law. I am sure that some of the private Members' Bills that have been proposed by Labour Back Benchers have much merit, but I am worried that those Members will not have enough time to get the Bills into law and that this House will not have an opportunity to discuss them fully.

The other reason why private Members' Bills come before this House is so that an issue can be debated and the Government must respond on a substantive motion. We hold useful debates in Westminster Hall-I have referred to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering is leading one at this moment-and very useful Adjournment debates, but they are not on motions that could become law. In addition, such debates are short and the half-hour debates tend just to have the relevant Minister and the Back Bencher speaking, so no real debate takes place. By comparison, when a private Member's Bill is considered there is a proper debate in this Chamber and everybody takes part.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly, and he is doing a tremendous job, as ever, of defending the interests of Back-Bench MPs. Would he agree that one such private Member's Bill that is tabled for discussion in the next few weeks is that promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), the European Union Membership (Referendum) Bill? That is an issue about which many of our constituents are concerned. If the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) does not succeed today, the chances of that important issue being debated will probably be lost.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I will not be led down the path of arguing the merits or otherwise of being in this horrendous European Union. It would be wrong of me to do that. However, he is quite right to point out the problem about the debate. He talked about the European Union Membership (Referendum) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell). It is listed provisionally for Second Reading on 26 February. There is no problem with that, except for the fact that it is listed as motion 4 on that day and will never be reached.

More interestingly, and to be non-party political, let us take another Bill as an example: the Lisbon Treaty (Referendum) Bill, which also has much merit and is promoted by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). It is also listed on 26 February; it is motion 3. Again, that will not be debated, or at least is unlikely to be reached.

Many issues are brought up by Members who want a debate rather than necessarily to get the law changed. They need time for the debates and on occasion the debates are embarrassing for those who sit on the Front Benches of the political parties. I dare say that the Lisbon Treaty (Referendum) Bill will certainly be embarrassing for the Government-

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

And the Lib Dems.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

It will be very embarrassing for the Liberal Democrats and it will be interesting for those on my Front Bench.

Irrespective of the issue, we could consider in such a way all 20 Bills that have been proposed. The Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill sounds like a pretty important Bill and is listed as the first to be discussed on 26 February. Why not debate that Bill this Friday? Why not allow the time for the arguments to be heard and, if it is the will of the House, for it to get its Second Reading, to go to Committee and to come back to the House for Third Reading? I just do not understand why the Government have taken this view-

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

rose-

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am going to learn.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is challenging the principle of having some non-sitting Fridays. On this side of the House, we believe that Members need time to discharge their duties in their constituencies as well as in this House. The system of non-sitting Fridays was introduced, I understand, on the recommendation of the former Conservative Chief Whip, Lord Jopling, and has been widely welcomed since its introduction by Members in all parties as they have that time to discharge duties in their constituencies. Given the difficulties that have gripped our constituencies -certainly mine-over the last couple of days due to the extreme weather, it is pretty important that Members should have the chance to get back there.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Fridays are important for constituency work, but I do constituency work every day of the week. We are talking about 13 Fridays a Session, and, basically, only the mornings of those days. I do not think that the hon. Lady's argument washes. She failed to say that on a Friday it is only Members who are interested in a particular Bill who turn up, and not the whole House. If the hon. Lady can guarantee that the whole House will turn up on the eight days that she has suggested, so it would be her motion that would give them the other Fridays off, I might be inclined to think again about the motion. Of course, that is not at all what the motion is about. The motion is about restricting the voice of this House.

The hon. Lady's helpful intervention leads me to "Rebuilding the House", the first report of the 2008-09 Session by the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. It talks about the timing of private Members' Bills and states:

"The House should be responsible for ensuring that merely procedural devices cannot obstruct Private Members' Bills, and that they are brought to a decision."

The Government are using the procedural device of suspending Standing Orders to obstruct private Members' Bills.

The shadow Leader of the House also argued that there is a problem with Fridays. "Rebuilding the House" suggests in paragraph 193 that Wednesday evenings could be used for private Members' Bills. I have not sought to go that far, but it would overcome entirely the hon. Lady's objection that too many Fridays will be used up. If I could have a guarantee from the shadow Leader of the House before the end of the debate that instead of using the Fridays that are free, they will put the extra five days' business on Wednesdays, I would more than happily withdraw my amendment and accept the shadow Leader of the House's words-

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

She is the Deputy Leader of the House.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I apologise. Because of her ability, I just assumed that she was Leader. As Deputy Leader of the House, she might want to take some advice before responding. I hope that at some stage we will hear the Government's view on the motion. To say that they have been silent is not quite correct, but "I beg to move" is hardly a good enough argument for a motion that has been on the Order Paper since 23 November and has been objected to by Members of the House on every single evening since.

I have not gone as far as the Committee, but have accepted the current situation, because for some reason the Committee's report has not been debated by the House.

Let me move on to my amendment. It is straightforward and restores the 13 days. It says that

"Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 8, 15, 22 and 29 January; 5 and 26 February"-

that suggests that I have not called for debate on every single Friday, as the hon. Lady suggested. In fact, I was very careful not to interfere with the spring recess. I also selected

"5, 12, 19 and 26 March"

and I have not suggested another private Members' Bills day until 23 April. Although I do not know the dates for the Easter recess, I know when Easter is so I have allowed for those Fridays, too. I think the hon. Lady was being slightly harsh on me in suggesting that I had picked on every Friday.

I have not heard the argument, but perhaps it will be made at some stage, that there is not enough time for Bills to be printed and prepared for a debate on 8 January-this Friday. However, we already know that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome could get his Bill then and he could probably have a whole sitting on it, so it is possible. The reason that the Bills have not been printed is that the Government failed under Standing Order No. 14 to provide the dates that they said they would provide and which they are required to do by Standing Orders.

I take what might be an old-fashioned view that Standing Orders exist to protect Parliament-I am sure that is correct-and particularly to protect Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Opposition Members of Parliament against the power of the Executive. Year after year we have seen the Government-the Executive-take more and more power, no matter which party has been in control. This year is a turning point. Parliament has been brought into disrepute by what happened last year. People are demanding that Parliament assert itself and become more independent of the Executive. It is amazing that in a year when people are saying that, the Government propose to cut the time for Back-Bench debate.

The Government would lose nothing by providing those extra Fridays. All it would mean is that a Minister would have to turn up on a Friday five more times than is suggested by the Government. Although this is a small piece of the overall reform of Parliament, it is exceptionally important that the Government realise that cutting off difficult debate is not in their interest. They have made that mistake time and again since I have been in Parliament. By reducing the amount of time allowed through programme motions, debate has not carried on and parts of Bills have not even been scrutinised. That is a failure of the Government. The more an item is debated, the more the Government can put their point of view.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

I come back to the question that I have already put to the hon. Gentleman. Are members of his Front-Bench team in agreement with the points that he is making? He keeps speaking about cutting off debate and denying Back-Bench Members the chance for debate, but we have allocated private Members' Bill days pro rata in a short Session, exactly as was done in 1996-97 and 1991-92, under a Conservative Administration. If he chooses to condemn an Administration for that, I invite him to condemn earlier ones too, and to tell the House whether members of his Front-Bench team agree with what he is doing today.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

If I stood up and said that my Front-Bench team agreed with me and that I had the approval of the Whips Office, with my reputation no one would believe me. It would be wholly wrong. I have no idea what members of my Front-Bench team will say on the matter. I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire will have an opportunity to speak. He has made it clear in the House that he was amazed and dismayed at the failure of the Government to bring the motion before the House before Christmas so that we could have a debate.

In answer to the hon. Lady, I refer to Standing Orders. I have the 2009 edition, which has not changed in relation to Standing Order No. 14. It says that the House must allocate 13 days in each Session for private Members' Bills on Fridays. I shall read Standing Order No. 14(4), which in my booklet is on page 16. It states:

"Private Members' bills shall have precedence over government business on thirteen Fridays in each session to be appointed by the House."

That Standing Order could go on and say, as the Deputy Leader of the House would like it to say, that that should be pro rata if there is to be a general election in that Session. Standing Orders do not say that. If the Government wanted to change Standing Orders to say that, they would have to provide that in the following Session, which would be a longer Session, more than 13 Fridays would be allowed. But that is not what the Standing Order says. Why not? It is because of the ballot. I have put in for the ballot every year since I entered the House and come nowhere near the top 20. If one is in that top 20, one expects to have an opportunity to get one's voice heard. That is what the Standing Orders are about, and that is what the Government just do not get.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for having been at a Transport Committee sitting, but I have watched the annunciator screen with some admiration, thinking of the pearls of wisdom that my hon. Friend will have been delivering while I have not been in the Chamber. He rightly said that Standing Orders say that there shall be 13 sitting Fridays-not that if the Session is longer, there should be more than 13. They say exactly 13. I have been a Member for 20-plus years and have, therefore, sat through long Sessions and short Sessions. On every occasion that I have ever known a Session to go beyond its length of time, there never have been more than 13 such sittings. Not only do the Standing Orders not say that there must be more, there have not been any more. Is my hon. Friend aware of any occasion when there have been more than 13? That is the most powerful part of the argument: if it has to be 13, it has to be 13.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, and that is exactly the point. Standing Orders are absolutely clear: 13 Fridays are set aside for private Members' business in each Session. They do not talk about reducing the number in a short Session or extending the number in a long Session. We cannot extend the number of Fridays for private Members' business unless we suspend Standing Orders, and I return to my original argument that Standing Orders exist to protect this Parliament and this House against the power of the Executive. I have yet to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House why the surplus Fridays that we are not using before a general election can be held cannot be used. She has been keen to pop up and down to intervene, but she has never answered that question.

I have said that our having had to wait until today to debate this motion is ridiculous, and that private Members have presented their Bills without knowing the date of their Second Reading. The elephant in the House, however, is that we know that there will be a general election, although not when that general election will be called.

If Standing Orders say that 13 Fridays should be set aside, it is surely logical, in a year when there will be a general election, to take the first Friday available and run things on from there. That would give more Members the chance of a Second Reading at which their Bills might be debated, and it would give their Bills more chance of going into and coming out of Committee. The hon. Lady keeps referring to previous Executives, saying, "They cut the number of sittings down," but if we look at the statistics we find that many more Bills got through: 49 in the final Parliament of the Conservative Government, against eight under this control-freak Executive.

I do not want to take up a lot of time on what I believe to be an exceptionally important matter, because I know about the adverse weather conditions.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having been present at the beginning of his contribution; I was at a sitting of the Procedure Committee. I have the privilege of being a co-signatory to his amendment, however, and not having listened to the whole debate, I wondered whether he would be minded to put his proposed change to the vote. If he were so minded, I would be very supportive of it.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

rose-

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

A short reprise?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am certainly not going to go over what I have said, because that would be to unfair on other hon. Members who want to speak. However, the issue is very simple: my amendment would restore the 13 Fridays. The trouble is that Standing Orders provide us with a problem, because they say that the House must bring forward 13 days. However, one cannot bring anything forward in this House; the Executive do so.

It may be that in future the reforms proposed in "Rebuilding the House" bring about a House business committee, and I sincerely hope that there will be such a committee and that this problem will never happen again. We have had to wait until today, however, and I think it was only the fact that the Government eventually realised that somebody would turn up at the end of every day's business to object that forced them to have a debate. If Standing Orders are to be changed or suspended on a matter so important as restricting the amount of time for private Members' Bills, we must have a little debate on it. We cannot just allow that to get through on the nod.

Here lies the failure of this Executive. This would never have happened under a different Executive. It would probably not have happened even with a different Prime Minister of the same party. It seems to me that we are making a grave mistake if we allow this motion to go through today.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I do seek to put my amendment to the vote. Before closing, I just want to make it clear again to all hon. Members that supporting my amendment will comply with the Standing Orders and restore 13 Fridays for private Members' Bills, while in no way affecting Members who have already selected the days for their Second Reading, as all the days that they have selected are covered by my amendment. The amendment would add and free up five more days for ordinary Members to have a chance to instigate legislation and either hear the arguments debated or get the matter raised and eventually introduced into law.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am very pleased to hear that my hon. Friend wants to put the matter to a vote. In reply to an intervention by the Minister, he quite properly said that he was a Back Bencher and did not wish to best-guess what any Front Benchers might think. If I understand it correctly, however, all three main parties have said that they hope to see more power for Parliament and more power and responsibility for Back Benchers in future. It is quite safe to say that all the parties' Front Benchers also think that. By putting his amendment to the vote, is not my hon. Friend offering the House an opportunity for Back Benchers to indicate that they support the view of their Front Benchers? In voting for the amendment, one is voting for more power for Back Benchers to have the time to which they are entitled. The vote is crucial; it provides a chance to see who agrees with their own Front-Bench team.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, in which he makes a valid point. All the Front-Bench teams signed up to "Rebuilding the House", the Wright report, and it was the Government who drew up a motion for that report to come into being. What they have unfortunately not done is debate the report. That again is an amazing situation. A vote would be a little test, would it not, for the House today. I am sure that all parties are going to allow a free vote; I cannot believe that any party political matter is attached to the vote. It seems quite reasonable for MPs to say that they are going to restore the power of Parliament in a small way by having the voice of Back Benchers heard. As I said, the House needs to be aware of that point in considering my amendment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

One of the problems we currently have with Fridays is the abysmal attendance. I am not quite sure how I am going to vote on my hon. Friend's amendment, but his answer to this question may well be the deciding factor. If his amendment is accepted, will he give an undertaking that he will be here personally on each of the Fridays listed in it?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I do not know whether this will encourage my right hon. Friend to vote for my amendment, but I would be here on each of those Fridays.

I thought that my right hon. Friend might be about to mention the suggestion in the "Rebuilding the House" report that we should have sittings to discuss private Members' Bills on Wednesdays. I have already said that I would not press my amendment to a vote if the Deputy Leader of the House, who has now had time to consider that offer, were to suggest that we should keep the Fridays listed in the Government motion and add five Wednesdays, which would bring more people to the debates. I would be more than happy not to press my amendment to a vote in those circumstances, and I wonder whether she would like to intervene to give me her view on that. So far, the Government have said only, "I beg to move".

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Again, I apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the debate. Has my hon. Friend received any indication from the Government on whether, in the most unlikely event of their being re-elected in the general election, they would be minded to allow more than 13 Fridays for private Members' Bills in what would be the long first Session of that new Parliament?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

My hon. Friend raises an issue that I touched on earlier, although in a slightly different way, when I said that Standing Orders do not allow for more than 13 such sittings per Session. The next Session will, however, be much longer than usual. If the general election is in June, the next Session could run until the November of next year. In a Session lasting a normal calendar year, one would have 13 such sittings, but one would expect more in a longer Session. I know, however, that Standing Orders would not permit that. It would therefore be necessary to table another Government motion to extend the number of sittings for private Members' Bills in the next Session to-

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

Eighteen.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Indeed. My hon. Friend is slightly quicker at maths than I am.

I would certainly consider withdrawing my amendment if the Deputy Leader of the House were to pop up and say that the Government would table another motion on the timing of private Members' Bills, so that there could be 18 such sittings in the next Session. Again, however, there is a deathly silence-

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating himself. He has done so twice while I have been in the Chair, and, on his own admission, he has also repeated something that he said earlier. We are not like a cinema in continuous performance for the benefit of people arriving late. I suggest that he speak strictly to the terms of his amendment, which he has now done for some considerable time.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was, in fact, coming to my conclusion.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will my hon. Friend confirm what he was saying earlier about his willingness to withdraw his amendment if the Government responded positively? He mentioned taking private Members' Bills on a Wednesday. I assume that he means that those debates would take place after the moment of interruption on a Wednesday, and not as part of the main business-

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) will not be distracted by the distinguished Chairman of the Procedure Committee on matters of that kind. We are not talking about Wednesdays in this amendment; we are talking about Fridays.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I want to be very clear that my amendment does not seek to change the precedent of discussing private Members' Bills on Fridays. I have deliberately not gone down that route, because it would involve a change to Standing Orders. My amendment simply seeks to make the House do what it says that it should do, which is to have 13 sittings for private Members' Bills. I have a problem, however, in that we have not heard the Government's arguments at all. The only words we have heard from them are, "I beg to move", and a few interventions. I am therefore trying to anticipate what they might have said in putting forward an alternative argument.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am mindful of what you said about Wednesdays, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is quite right, but can my hon. Friend tell us why he chose the Fridays in his amendment? What is the significance of those particular Fridays?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The hon. Gentleman, by his own admission, was unable to be here for a large part of the debate. Those points have been covered, and I shall have to invoke Standing Orders on repetition against the hon. Member for Wellingborough if he is tempted down that line.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am certainly not tempted down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My amendment does not break Standing Orders in any way. The Government could have chosen the Fridays that I have chosen. None of them will be in a recess, including the anticipated Easter recess. Between each, enough days are provided for the presentation and publication of Bills, and there are enough days for the House to consider them. That is why 18 January could and should have been used.

Andrew Pelling (Independent, Croydon Central)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being in the Chamber earlier in the debate. Constituency work kept me away, as I sat here throughout yesterday.

In his commentaries on the amendment, has the hon. Gentleman been able to point out the comparison between this House and the US Congress? Congressmen make a very great merit with their constituents of legislation that they have personally got on to the statute book. Does not that emphasise the importance of the amendment, and of maximising the number of days available in the remainder of the time of this Parliament?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point and that is on the record, but I do not want to be drawn into making comparisons with the US Senate. Clearly, the US Executive are outside Congress and the Executive here are in the House.

It is very good news that the Government Chief Whip has turned up to listen to and encourage debate in the House on more time for parliamentary business. I am really pleased to see him here and I hope he has an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a little later.

Other hon. Members may wish to speak in the debate, and I shall take this opportunity to conclude my remarks. By supporting my amendment, the House would not demur from anything in the Government motion and it would not affect any Member who has already selected a day.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

The motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House provides for private Members' Bills to be considered on eight Fridays, rather than the 13 provided for in Standing Order No. 14(4), and appoints the days.

As I indicated earlier, we are, for the first time since 1997, in the fifth Session of a Parliament. That is key in the context of the motion. We know that the current Session must end no later than 10 May this year. That means that there could be a maximum of only 82 sitting days, including the eight Fridays proposed in the motion, which compares with an average of 158 sitting days per Session since 2001. The motion therefore reduces the number of sitting Fridays pro rata to match the length of the Session. As I have indicated a number of times in interventions, in 1991-92 and 1996-97, motions with a similar effect were proposed by the then Conservative Administrations and agreed by the House.

The remaining provisions of the motion are consequential on the change in the number of days. They bring forward from the eighth to the fifth Friday the earliest date on which a Bill may be referred to a Second Reading Committee, and the date on which Bills start to take precedence according to how much progress they have made rather than simply according to the order in which they were introduced.

The motion is not about restricting Members in any way. The Leader of the House tabled a motion, which announces dates pro rata to the length of the Session. The opposition of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) has so far prevented the dates from being set. We are considering a routine House motion, which is necessary to adapt the House's private Member's Bill procedures to the shorter fifth Session.

The motion will allow the private Members' Bill process to continue in an orderly and predictable manner for hon. Members who have been fortunate enough in the ballot to make progress with their measures. I commend it to the House.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I am glad that the Government have finally allowed us to debate this matter-the motion and the amendment have been on the Order Paper since 23 November. I have raised the failure to resolve the matter in business questions, as have other hon. Members. Until today, there has been no certainty about the dates for discussing private Members' Bills. Again, the Government seemed to expect that they could assume Members' support when they timetabled House business. When opposition was expressed in the form of an amendment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) tabled, the Government assumed that they could get the motion through on the nod at the end of the day's business rather than allowing proper discussion, which we are now having. That is not right and it has been raised in the report, which my hon. Friend mentioned, about allowing the House more control over its business. Under the Wright scenario, I suspect that we would not have had the problems that my hon. Friend described.

However, that is a debate for another day, together with whether we move private Members' Bills from Fridays to Wednesdays. I commend my hon. Friend's defence of private Members' Bills, which was made with no self-interest because I am afraid that he was not successful in the ballot. It is important that the House jealously protects private Members' time. I say that as someone who was successful in the ballot in 1997, when my main problem was not time, but Eric Forth. Getting the Bill round him was the major task, and, indeed, we did that.

Of course, I sympathise with my hon. Friend's desire to maximise the number of days for private Members' Bills. However, the Government's proposal to act pro rata and move to a lower number to reflect the shorter Session is right. As the Deputy Leader of the House said, it is in line with previous practice.

My hon. Friend made several compelling points, some more compelling than others. However, one of his more compelling points was that in a shorter Session, the number of days decreases, but in a longer Session, the number does not increase. The House may want to revert to that in the context of the Wright debate and allocating the future business of the House.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Can he, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, say that if a Conservative Government were elected later this year, they would take account of the extra length of the Session and allow more private Members' Fridays?

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

The short answer is no and the longer answer is probably also no, because the House has yet to debate the Wright report, whether we should have a business committee and how time should be allocated in future. I approach that with an open mind. I served on the Wright Committee and I have much sympathy with it, but I cannot today commit any future Administration to an increase in the pro rata number from 13 to 18 or a higher number, which my hon. Friend ingeniously tries to tempt me to do.

On this occasion, I propose to support the Government's motion.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) had no personal interest in the matter. However, I have enormous personal interest, having been successful in the ballot, albeit in a lowly position this year-not that one's position in the ballot makes much difference to making progress with private Members' legislation, because some Government Whip need only shout "Object" for a measure to fall, as I found out in the previous Session. Nevertheless, were the amendment accepted, it would allow time to enable my important School Transport Bill, which would provide for a yellow bus system in this country-greatly to the advantage of children throughout the country and, indeed, the environment-to progress, or at least be debated.

However, the difficulty is typified by the debate. The Executive, not the House, prioritise the House's time for debate. The Executive decide what will happen and put that before the House, and only the Executive are allowed to do so. Answering on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman says he is unable to commit his party to taking a different position if it were to form the Executive in future, so the Executive would still have control of the business of the House. Back Benchers of all parties do not have as much control of the House's business as I think they should have.

All of that would be corrected if we could make progress on the proposals in the Wright Committee report. I do not intend to debate them today, because they are not the substance of the issue before us, but making progress on that would have the following two results: first, we would never in future have before us another such motion in the name of a Minister; secondly, we would no longer have rationing of days by the Executive. Instead, that would be determined by a committee of the House. It would consider the rationale of all of this and whether it is appropriate to make the abatement which is the substance of the motion, and we would have the option to consider whether Wednesdays are a better day than Fridays for the consideration of private Members' business.

So much is wrong with the current procedures for private Members' business. So many obstacles are put in the way of making rational progress on what may be very commendable Bills, and it appears to me that the will of the House is the last thing to be considered in respect of both the time made available for Bills and whether a Bill goes ahead. It is too simple to scupper something from a sedentary position, rather than debating matters and allowing the House to determine the result.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I have to say to the hon. Member that although he said he did not wish to have a wider debate, he seems now to be indulging in just that. He must come back to the amendment before the House today.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The amendment and the motion, I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, the motion sets out the Fridays on which private Member's Bills can be considered, and I was considering the procedure that would be applied on those Fridays were the House to agree to them. My contention is simply that the procedure is in desperate need of reform. That is one of the key reforms put forward in the proposals, but it is typical of this Government that we have these proposals and they never get debated. Week after week, we ask at business questions for them to be debated.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not being deliberately difficult, but he is now talking about the wider issue. He is perfectly correct to say that we are talking about the Fridays listed in the motion and the alternative Fridays in the amendment, but we should not be talking about the wider issues that may come out of the investigations of the Reform of the House of Commons Committee.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being inadvertently obtuse by not responding more promptly to your very clear instruction. I was attempting to say that such behaviour is typical of the Government in respect of the motion before us, as it has some of the key features: it is a motion, take it or leave it, and it has not been debated by the House until now. We have asked week after week for it to be debated. On each and every occasion that it has been listed for debate, the hon. Member for Wellingborough or one of his hon. Friends has shouted "Object", and therefore it has not been debated. Had the Government wished to do so, they could have brought forward this debate at any stage in the last few weeks. It would have been in order for them to have done so. It would have been proper for them to have done so before the First Reading of private Members' Bills shortly before Christmas, but they did not do so. That is one reason why the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

When I was asked for the date of the Second Reading of my own private Member's Bill, I said, "Tomorrow," rather than name a specific date, none of which we knew at that stage because the House had not agreed to the timetable that is the substance of the Deputy Leader of the House's proposal. Because the House had not agreed that, I did not feel that I could assume either that the House would agree to the motion or that the hon. Gentleman's amendment would not be agreed to. I found myself in some difficulty, therefore, which is why I said, "Tomorrow," when asked about the date for the Second Reading of my Bill.

Andrew Pelling (Independent, Croydon Central)

Will the hon. Gentleman briefly remind me of the Bill for which he thinks it so important to provide time for discussion in the House?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

At the risk of repeating myself and incurring the wrath of Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is the School Transport Bill, which in my opinion is a very important Bill, because it deals with matters affecting every schoolchild in this country, road-user safety and the inappropriate use of many vehicles on the morning school run. I am keen, therefore, that the Bill be given an opportunity, on one of these Fridays, to be debated, but I honestly do not believe that it will be if the motion is passed. But that is my misfortune. I should have arranged to be drawn No. 1 in the ballot, rather than No. 19. That way I would at least have ensured a Second Reading. However, it does not alter my view that private Members' business is important, that we should find proper opportunities to debate it and that we need to reform procedures of the House so that we do not get motions of the sort presented by the hon. Lady today.

I agree with an interesting point that the hon. Member for Wellingborough made. I do not think that Standing Orders currently provide for the procedure that appears to be accepted by everyone and which has been used previously. I do not think that the change proposed by the hon. Lady is provided for. Now, perhaps it should be. Perhaps there should be a provision in Standing Orders relating the number of days devoted to private Members' business to the length of the Session. That would be perfectly logical and is probably a view shared by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. There is logic in saying that there should be more days for a long Session and fewer for a short Session, and I do not think that any of us would disagree with that. However, if that is the intention, the House should decide and Standing Orders should provide for it, not for what on the face of it is the absolute opposite, which is an absolute number of days to be provided by the House-not Ministers-for the consideration of private Members' legislation.

I am glad that we have finally had an opportunity to debate this matter. I have no idea why it had to be delayed for so long, other than the normal cloth-eared intransigence of the Conservative Front Bench- [Interruption.] I mean the Government Front Bench. I am sure that the Conservatives will be just as cloth-eared and intransigent when, and if, they ever form a Government, but we shall see-let us give them the benefit of the doubt, for the moment. However, we should have debated the matter earlier, and I certainly shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to make their own decisions on whether to support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough, because this is a House matter, not one to be determined by Front Benchers of whatever complexion.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesman for anticipating a possible result of the certain general election. The problem here is caused by the expiry of Parliament in May. The Government, who must have known that this was coming, ought to have suggested that there be two private Members' days in each sitting month. That would have solved the problem. It would give us roughly the 13 days that we want by working out the number of private Members' days in proportion to the number of weeks on which we are sitting.

That does not mean that all private Members' Bills would be either discussed or necessarily passed. In memory of Eric Forth, there is what I call the Chope-Dismore choke. Any private Member's Bill has to get through this little parliamentary interest. Many of the concerns of those who promote these Bills are not about the people who object sitting down but about those who discuss the merits of the Bills and their possibilities on their feet-clearing their throats, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) did with some distinction and effect this afternoon.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

My hon. Friend is not suggesting, is he, that he does not think it a good idea that such Bills should be properly debated in the House?

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I certainly think it right that such Bills should be discussed, and I admire the way in which my hon. Friend manages to do that so effectively and, often, so extensively.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

If the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) were passed today, one of its inadvertent consequences would be that most of those days would be devoted to consideration of the nine Bills presented by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) earlier today.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I will not deviate from what I intended to say, which is not as extensive as it would be if I followed every remark that the hon. Gentleman felt he ought to have made in his speech and that he has decided to put into mine.

The reason for supporting the amendment is a simple one. Liberty and responsibility are things that people take; they are not things that are given. We should be saying to the establishment, which is represented at the moment by the Deputy Leader of the House and rather elegantly by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the shadow Leader of the House, who can see all the proper considerations, that if this House-that basically means those who are free to vote as they wish-votes as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough suggests, we will be taking responsibility for our affairs and using the liberty of our votes to say that we want those days for ourselves. I believe that we should do exactly that.

I finish by making an observation that was made yesterday as well. It is rare that a Government motion, whether it be a motion on a Bill or a motion such as that which we are debating now, is discussed in the House-not put through on the nod, but discussed-and not a single Government Back Bencher speaks in favour of it.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Very briefly, I should like to put on record my admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who ensured that we got this debate by persistently blocking the motion on the Order Paper and not allowing it to go through on the nod. His amendment is first class. I am delighted that I was able to support it, and I look forward to voting for it soon.

Election of the Deputy Speakers

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

I beg to move,

That this House approves the Fourth Report from the Procedure Committee of Session 2008-09 (House of Commons Paper No. 1080); endorses the principle that the Deputy Speakers should be chosen through a ballot of the whole House; and endorses the preparation by the Procedure Committee of detailed proposals for the election of the Deputy Speakers and the consideration by the Committee of the introduction of term-limits for the Speaker and Deputy Speakers.

The motion on the Order Paper has been brought before the House at the request of the Procedure Committee. The Leader of the House is therefore facilitating that request, which I believe has cross-party support. On 2 July last year, Mr. Speaker proposed that Deputy Speakers should be elected. The Procedure Committee then conducted an inquiry, and on 2 November published its report, "Election of the Deputy Speakers: Principles". In the report the Committee recognised that further work was needed, and before taking that work forward, it asked the House to endorse the principles that it has identified: that the Deputy Speakers should be elected; that they should be elected by the whole House in a way that ensures that the party balance within the House is respected; that the Procedure Committee should prepare detailed proposals for the House to consider at the start of the next Parliament; and that the Procedure Committee should examine the idea of adopting term limits for the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, and make recommendations. I commend the work of the Procedure Committee in producing its report.

Andrew Pelling (Independent, Croydon Central)

In giving consideration to the acceptance of these principles, there are two important concerns. First, the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers clearly need to work as a team; therefore, although we have had the very successful election of a Speaker, there will be issues of compromising that teamwork if elections for Deputy Speaker take place. Secondly, on term limits for Speakers and Deputy Speakers, the House should give consideration to the impact that that might have on the ability of the Speaker's team of Deputy Speakers to be sufficiently independent of the House to be able to maintain its proper discipline and order.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am sure that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, who is here with us, has heard it. However, it would not necessarily be appropriate for me to respond, as I am moving this motion on behalf of the Leader of the House, to facilitate the further work of the Procedure Committee in taking it forward.

Andrew Pelling (Independent, Croydon Central)

Will the Minister help me to understand this clearly? In her speech she said that we were accepting the principles; subsequently, in answer to my intervention, she said that this was purely a matter of process. Could she explain whether in supporting the motion we are accepting the principles of elections and term limits?

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

As I said, we are accepting the idea that the Procedure Committee should examine the issue of adopting term limits. That is not to say that we are accepting term limits. We are adopting the principle as laid out but there is further work to do, and the Procedure Committee will be taking that forward. I hope that that is clear to the hon. Gentleman. If the House agrees to the motion the Procedure Committee will produce a further report. The motion simply asks the House to endorse this decision, and I commend it to the House.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

The motion reflects changing times, and Conservative Members support it. As the Deputy Speakers serve the whole House, there is merit in the argument that the whole House should have a say in who they are. Moreover, this is consistent with the arguments for reform of the House of Commons, in that there are proposals for the election of the Chairmen of Select Committees.

By passing the motion, we will allow the Procedure Committee to continue urgent work to create the mechanism required for the election of Deputy Speakers. It will not be an easy task, as there are several matters to consider, not least to ensure that the party balance is maintained with the final result. Given that the aim is to ensure that the proposals are in place for the start of the new Parliament later this year, I wish the Procedure Committee well with all its deliberations.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I, too, support the motion. It is sensible for the Procedure Committee to be given the green light to proceed with its deliberations. I had the great pleasure of discussing these matters with members of that Committee this afternoon, and I know that they are taking great care in looking at all aspects of the issues. The issues are complex; deciding the details of the scheme that will be put before the House is not as simple as might at first be perceived, and the Committee members are taking great care to consider all the implications. Nevertheless, it is right that today the House as a whole should give its imprimatur to the direction of travel that the Procedure Committee is taking.

The one caveat that I enter is that there will be an impact on some of the procedure that will be needed in respect of the exact role of the Deputy Speaker. We are not, of course, discussing the Wright Committee today, but if its proposals for the future role of Deputy Speakers are adopted by the House in respect of giving the Chairman of Ways and Means greater influence over the programme and business of the House, that will have an impact on the eventual proposals put before the House. I am a little worried about the timing of those two factors and the impending general election. It would be greatly to the advantage of the House to have the matter determined before Dissolution, so that the new Parliament has the opportunity to elect the Deputy Speakers in good order at the start of the new Session. With that one caveat, I shall certainly advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), her shadow, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), for their support for the motion. In answer to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I should say that the Procedure Committee shares his view that this matter will best be settled as soon as possible-certainly during the lifetime of this Parliament. The Procedure Committee is currently meeting weekly to try to meet that goal.

As has been said, the motion is an endorsement of the principle of election for Deputy Speakers. I say to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) that I suppose some academic might say that we already have a system of election in place, in that the motion that comes before the House for their appointment may be voted on, and is amendable. However, the last time such a Division took place was in 1962. The downside of our current procedure is that such a motion is tabled without notice, so no Member in any part of the House has any time to reflect on whether he or she wishes to support the names being put forward. Indeed, on the day when it normally occurs-the day of state opening-there is no Order Paper. Members do not even get five minutes' thinking time, because the motion is moved without any notice at all. Some may say that the nominations are cloaked in secrecy.

So the procedure is not transparent. However, I have to say that it has worked well in the past, and has delivered a number of excellent Deputy Speakers; I include the present incumbents in that description. However, I do think that it is now time to update our procedure to make it more transparent, and to give Members time to think about their choice.

I do not intend to dwell in detail on the proposals because, as the Deputy Leader of the House has made clear, the motion is an endorsement of principle. If the House supports the motion, it will have an opportunity to go into greater detail at a later date. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) mentioned term limits; I should tell him that all the motion does is authorise the Procedure Committee to give "consideration" to the introduction of term limits. If the motion passes, the matter will not be concluded one way or the other today. The motion asks, and authorises, the Procedure Committee to look into the matter and make recommendations to the House.

Today is not the day for detailed debate. The motion merely endorses the work we have done so far and authorises the Procedure Committee to continue. I would like to place on the record my thanks to all members of the Committee, of all parties, for the excellent work they have done so far. I support the motion, and urge the House to do so.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

As a member of the Procedure Committee, I follow its Chairman in welcoming the fact that the Government have laid this motion before us today. I welcome this opportunity for the House to endorse, as I hope it will, the Committee's proposals, enabling it to continue to examine the ways in which we can make a reality of the election of Deputy Speakers, following and building on the considerable success of the House's new procedures for the election of the Speaker.

In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I re-emphasise that a number of rather difficult matters of detail remain before the Committee. It is important that we continue, as the Chairman said, to meet weekly to deal with those matters, and we hope to bring some satisfactory proposals before the House in the not too distant future.

Of course, this issue is not unrelated to those dealt with by the Wright Committee; indeed, the issue was before that Committee, which referred it to the Procedure Committee for its consideration. I hope the House has an early opportunity not only to debate the Wright Committee's recommendations, which need to be seen alongside those of the Procedure Committee, but to decide on them in a positive way.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, for explaining the difference between the two parts of this process. The House will want to agree the specifics of the preparation of detailed proposals for the election of Deputy Speakers, and he is right to draw our attention to the fact that his Committee will be considering the introduction of term limits. My view is that that will be difficult to achieve successfully. I can see why it is in the interests of the House for there to be a voluntary change of Speaker. It should be in the middle of a Parliament, although I can see why a Speaker might say that it would be more convenient for a term to end at the end of a Parliament, so that the change of Speaker does not cause a by-election. There may be a way of resolving that that the Committee could consider. Generally, it is better to trust people's judgment.

My second caution is that although the question of having what is called gender balance has arisen in the Committee, I see no reason why, if this House is two-thirds male and one-third female, for example, we should not have two female Deputy Speakers and only one male Deputy Speaker. I see no problem with that. It would not be gender balance; it would be the consequence of the way people were chosen-or, under these proposals, elected. My gentle suggestion for the Committee to consider is that the first man and the first woman with the greatest number of votes could become Deputy Speakers, and that the third Deputy Speaker be the other candidate with the greatest number of votes, whether they get more or less than one of the other two. There are various ways of dealing with the matter, but having a rigid balance, or rigid proportions, strikes me as unnecessary.

The other issue in my mind-besides recognising, as others have, the dedication of those who serve as Deputy Speakers and Chairman of Ways and Means-is that the House has been very lucky with those who have been prepared to hold those posts. Each of those positions is a position of service, rather than of ambition. That is one of the things that make this House rather endearing, and rather more effective than if all of us tried to go for such positions because we thought we needed the prominence.

Andrew Pelling (Independent, Croydon Central)

I want to make just one brief point, which I hope will be listened to. We are accepting the principle of a more obvious democratic process-voting for Deputy Speakers-but I raise this one concern. It is difficult and dangerous to appear to be talking in this way about moving towards further democracy within the House, but I am concerned that the election of a Deputy Speaker could be used as a means of leverage-a means of punishment of, or expression of a lack of confidence in, a sitting Speaker. That is one possible danger.

Under the current process, although the appointment of Deputy Speakers is at the discretion of the House, they are very much part of a team. I can imagine that the stresses and strains of being part of a Speakership team are significant, and it is important not to get ourselves into a situation in which the House might elect a Deputy Speaker against the wishes of a Speaker with whom the House had fallen out.

Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate — Regulatory reform