Oral evidence: Private Members’ bills, HC 684Wednesday 20 January 2016
Oral evidence, 20 January 2016.
Witness
Phillip Davies MP, Conservative, Shipley, gave evidence.
Chair
Mr Davies, what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, and I am the unstoppable force and you are the immovable object? In physics it cannot actually happen, so somebody in this battle to the death between Holmes and Moriarty is going to go down. Who is it going to be? Are you going to succeed in maintaining private Members’ Bills as they are currently constructed, or is this Committee going to carry the day with what many of us feel would be much needed reforms?
Philip Davies
Obviously, I hope I am successful, but my track record in success at whatever legislation comes before the House is not great. I am sure you have far more friends in Parliament than I have, Mr Walker.
Chair
You are being very, very coy.
Mr Mak
Two questions. You are obviously very well known as someone who speaks frequently on a Friday, often with the intention of trying to talk out a Bill. When you do that, how do you see your role in the Chamber? Is it as a legislator or do you feel you are performing some other democratic function? Secondly, there was an article in The Times, as you may be aware, where you and other colleagues who fulfil a similar function were described as almost taking on unilaterally the role of arbitrators as to which Bills would proceed and which would not. What is your response to that?
Philip Davies
My role is no more powerful than anybody else’s. Every MP has the opportunity if they so wish to come on a Friday and influence the outcome of what happens on a Friday. The fact that the vast majority of MPs choose not to do that is a matter for them. I happen to choose to come along and contribute to the debates. Because so few MPs turn up to contribute, it means that I have more influence than I otherwise would if more MPs did come. But I cannot be held responsible for that. I come along simply with the purpose of trying to achieve the outcome that I want to see. If there is a Bill that I think is very good, I support it. I supported Nick Thomas-Symonds’ Bill by not speaking at all, because if you want to support a private Member’s Bill, the best way of supporting it is not to say anything. It sometimes surprises me how many people waste so much time on a Friday by saying how much they support a Bill, and before you know it, two and a half hours are up. They might want to reflect on their strategy a bit better. So I support a Bill by not speaking at all and stop a bad Bill from going forward by running out of time. Like any effective MP should, I will use whatever procedures are in place to try and bring about the outcome that I think is best for the country and for my constituents. I certainly do not make any apology. If I am accused of being effective, I will plead guilty to being effective and I will take that as a compliment rather than as an insult.
Chair
But the dissenting voice is always more powerful on a Friday than those voices in support. You could have 90 in support, desperate to support the Bill, and one voice—your voice—could derail that. So I think you are in a very powerful position.
Jenny Chapman
I think you are a class act, and I am an admirer of you in the Chamber. I understand the motivation.
Philip Davies
I sense there’s a but coming here.
Jenny Chapman
No, there isn’t. You are a Government Back Bencher with a noble motive to stop tosh getting on the statute book. I completely understand that. Because the system is the way it is, the means by which you are forced to achieve that is to do what you do so well on a Friday. If you were not doing it and we were in power, Ian might well be doing that job. That is the truth of it. However, do you think there might be other means for the Government to kill off Bills? You will have heard the discussion before you got to give evidence. What is your view on other means that may be less alienating for our constituents by which the Government can be forced to show their hand or can stop tosh getting on the statute book?
Philip Davies
I think I should point out at the start that I am not here to do the Government’s bidding for them. Anyone who knows anything about me at all will know that if the Government specifically asked me to help them talk out a Bill, I would tell them to do their own dirty work.
Jenny Chapman
They don’t need to ask you, do they?
Philip Davies
What I am saying is that I will try to block a Bill that I think is bad irrespective of whether the Government think it is bad.
Chair
Mr Davies, that’s not quite what you said in the last evidence session in the previous Parliament. I seem to recall that you said that you might occasionally have a friendly word with the Whips.
Philip Davies
Of course, I always have friendly words with the Whips. Even if I am disagreeing with them, I have a friendly word with them, but that doesn’t mean that we agree with each other. My point is that I will decide whether it is a Bill that I support. The Whips don’t decide for me whether it is a good Bill. It is impossible for me to talk out a Bill single-handedly. I can’t keep a debate going single-handedly for five hours, so if there is a Bill that I think should be blocked and stopped, I inevitably have to seek like-minded colleagues who want to stop it. That may sometimes be the Government or it may not. Maybe those who support a Bill should seek support in the same way that I seek support from my side. In terms of the other means, the premise of what you said—what you said was very kind, and I appreciate that—was right in that I don’t set the rules; I merely use them. If the rules change, so be it. It will mean that everyone will change and do things according to the new rules, and I would change accordingly. If everything was forced to go to a vote, I don’t think there would be any change and the result would be the same. Sir Edward Leigh made that point before. It is quite right that it would just be voted down instead of talked out. There would be no difference in result. If you don’t mind me saying so, the only downside of that is that if I knew that something was going to go to a vote and I had already satisfied myself that the Government were going to vote against it, there would be no point in me contributing to the debate.
Jenny Chapman
And we would all miss out.
Philip Davies
I am sure there would be cheers around the country at the fact that I was not boring everybody rigid with a speech, but the serious point is that all we would therefore probably hear is one side of the argument in the debate. Somebody would come with a motherhood and apple pie Bill, as happens at the moment, and everyone would be falling over themselves to say how much they support it, because they think that they might gain three extra votes in their constituency by saying that they support a worthy sentiment, but nobody would actually give the counterview. Why would they? They’re not going to make any difference to the end result—it’s going to get blocked—and it takes up a lot of time, so you just wouldn’t bother. The debate would actually be worse, because you would only hear one side of the story. If only one side of the story was heard and nobody had even considered another point of view or another opinion, the public may be even more baffled that a Bill hadn’t got through when the opinions were all the same. People would ask, “How on earth does a Bill that nobody ever spoke against not get through?” I am not entirely sure that the public would be so better served by that, because you wouldn’t hear any other opinions.
Jenny Chapman
If I can just interject, why would you only hear one side of the story? You are assuming that only the presenter of the Bill would get to—
Philip Davies
If the purpose of me contributing to the debate is to try to stop Bills that I think are bad, this is the mechanism that I have to use, under the rules, in order to block these Bills. If there was another mechanism of blocking them that didn’t involve me speaking in the debate, the chances are that I would use that mechanism and therefore nobody would hear another point of view. You would only hear one side. When we have a debate, whether people like the outcome or not, at least people get to hear that there is a different opinion on a particular Bill.
Bob Blackman
Having been on the receiving end of one or two of your excellent speeches, I appreciate what you do and understand the process completely. You do it extremely well and extremely effectively. One of the concerns that we’ve been looking at is that the only private Members’ Bills that seem to get through are those that are tacitly—or not even tacitly, but commensurately—supported by the Government. So have you actually talked out any Bills that are clearly Government-supported?
Philip Davies
I don’t know; quite possibly, because the thing with private Members’ Bills on a Friday is that if you move it to another day, every Bill that goes through will inevitably be a Government Bill. The great thing about Fridays is that if you can muster 100 people here, the Government will not muster 100 people here. The Government may have 40—they may have enough to win a vote on a normal turnout—but if you get 100 people here, you will defeat the Government on a vote, because they will not have 100 people here. That’s the great thing about a Friday. Now, it may well be that there have been Bills that the Government have supported where they didn’t have 100 people here and I have managed to block them. The Government eventually compromised on one Bill, which was the scrap metal Bill and which I was on the verge of blocking until they compromised on a particular thing that was important to me. Otherwise, that would have been blocked and they knew it, and that’s why they eventually came to me to seek a compromise to enable it to go through. So yes, you can have leverage. A Back Bencher has leverage on a Friday that on another day of the week they would never, ever get. So it’s not just the promoter of the Bill who’s the Back Bencher who has leverage on a Friday; it’s also the other Back Benchers contributing to the debate who have leverage on a Friday. If you moved it to another day, no Back Bencher would have any leverage whatsoever.
Bob Blackman
At the moment, obviously there’s a trigger point at which a closure can be reached, which is 100 MPs. Do you think that if we got to conclusions on votes, but a minimum of 100 MPs had to support a Bill if there was a Division for it to get a Second Reading, that would be a reasonable alternative approach?
Philip Davies
Without thinking it through, if the trigger is that there has to be a vote on a Bill and if 100 people don’t support the Bill it falls, then that would be a reasonable criterion. But you see, it wouldn’t make any difference in effect, because that’s what happens at the moment. That’s my point.
Bob Blackman
The reason I say that is that clearly one of the reasons why you speak for a long time to kill a Bill is to prevent it from getting to a vote and getting a Second Reading. Now, people in your position who would speak about Bills may take a contrary view and say, “Okay, we’ll have a vote on this and if you can demonstrate real popular support among MPs, then you can get it to Committee. If you can’t demonstrate popular support for a Bill, then the Bill will fall anyway.”
Philip Davies
But that’s what happens now, largely. I mean, if 100 people turn up to support a Bill, it will go through.
Bob Blackman
Only if they can get a closure motion.
Philip Davies
Yes, but any Bill that comes up first on the day will get a closure motion. I mean, Nick Thomas-Symonds had a problem getting a closure motion because his Bill was second on the day and the Government Whips successfully managed to make the first debate last so long that they knew there would be no time for a closure motion. That was what happened on that particular day. But with any Bill that comes up first, if 100 people are here to support a closure motion they will get it; the Speaker will give a closure, and they will get it through. So, I see what you’re saying, but in practice it won’t actually make a fat lot of difference. If 100 people are here, it goes through, and I think that’s a perfectly good check and balance. It means that there is a mechanism for me and other people to block a Bill that doesn’t have much support but is a worthy sentiment, and there is also another mechanism. I mean, it’s only 100 out of 650 required, and if a Bill can’t get 100 people mustered to support it, why should it go through anyway out of 650? The current system has a perfect check and balance to it.
Ian C. Lucas
If there is a vote on a private Member’s Bill and if the Government wanted to oppose that Bill, they would have to say so through their Minister, so there would be a debate. Opposition would be expressed in the Chamber through the Minister if there was to be a vote on an issue. So what you said earlier isn’t right, is it?
Philip Davies
Well, no, because the thing is as well that at the moment on a Friday there is no necessity for that to happen either, because if the Government judge that there are fewer than 40 people here, then they just don’t vote. So, on that point, the Government do not even have to get their hands dirty, anyway, because they can just rely on the fact that there are not 40 people here for a quorum. If there are not enough people here, it does not go through for that reason.
Ian C. Lucas
What we are suggesting is that there should be votes on a Bill, so that the position is clear and Government are held to account for their own position and are open about their own position.
Philip Davies
Yes, but when there is a vote, there is no obligation for people to vote. If the Government judge that there are fewer than 40 people here, they just won’t vote, and therefore the Bill will fall, because the House is not quorate. The only way your system would work is if you move the day of the vote, so that it was on a day when everybody was here. All I am saying is that that is all well and good, but you would certainly make sure that every single Bill became a Government Bill. That might be what you wish to achieve, and that is fair enough, but a Back Bencher would have absolutely no chance at all of getting something through.
Ian C. Lucas
What we want to achieve is clarity that the Government, if they are obstructing a Bill, are seen to be obstructing a Bill. Now, you are straightforward, Philip; no one would say anything other than that. Don’t you think that the Government should be straightforward as well? That is what this is about.
Philip Davies
I am in favour of everybody being straightforward, but I am afraid that that is not the case.
Ian C. Lucas
It isn’t at the moment, and that is why we are trying to change the system.
Philip Davies
It is not just the Government who are not straightforward about it, I might add. There are—if you don’t mind my saying so; I am not giving a popular message here—lots of MPs generally who are not straightforward either, and they will happily give people the impression that they support some worthy sentiment, knowing full well that it is a load of old cobblers. They rely on straightforward old me to go and take all the flak for blocking it, and then they go around saying, “Isn’t it terrible what he did?” They will come to me and say, “I agree that that was a load of old nonsense. Well done for doing that.” It is not just the Government here. MPs are just as guilty as the Government.
Ian C. Lucas
Before you get too carried away, I think you are straightforward. I think you are wrong a lot of the time, as well. I would never delegate to you, Philip, with the best will in the world, the decision on whether a Bill was bad or not. For example, you say you speak against bad Bills. What was bad about Teresa Pearce’s Bill?
Philip Davies
I actually spoke to all of the schools in my constituency about that Bill, and they were all of the same mind as me. I reflected their opinion, which was that first aid education should not be a compulsory part of the national curriculum. Now, I am all for first aid being taught in schools, and in many schools it is. I am all for kids learning first aid at Scouts, Cubs, the Duke of Edinburgh’s award and all the rest of it, but I am not in favour of it being a compulsory part of the national curriculum. That is basically my view: that it should be left for schools to decide for themselves. That is a clear, principled objection to making it a compulsory part of the national curriculum, and that is why I wanted to block the Bill. I might add that the schools that I spoke to in my constituency did not want it to be a compulsory part of the national curriculum either. I have no idea what the schools in your constituency thought. They may have had a different view.
Ian C. Lucas
That was a succinct summation of your opinion. It took 52 minutes on that morning. Do you think that that brought Parliament into disrepute?
Philip Davies
No.
Sir Edward Leigh
I think the only advantage of the present system is that at least on Fridays Back Benchers have a negative power. They do not have a positive power. They can stop something happening, but they cannot make something happen. There has been far too much focus on you in all this, if you don’t mind my saying so; it is not your fault. The fact is that if you were not here, you would simply be invented. I was here during the era of Eric Forth, who was your predecessor. After you, there will be somebody else. Before Eric Forth, there was Michael Brown. When I arrived, the Government wheeled in three or four ambitious young Back Benchers who did the same job as you. What worries me is that if we move it to a Tuesday or Thursday—I can understand your point, Ian, that at least it would be transparent: the Government will vote Bills down—there will just be another little debate, virtually nobody will take any interest and the Government will vote it down. Loads of people will be required to stay here all evening on a Tuesday or Wednesday, and whether they will really enjoy that, I do not know. Unless anybody can provide a better solution, I am not sure what alternative there is. Is there any way that we could keep the present system, where you talk and all the rest of it, but at the end of it, force the Government to come in and vote a Bill down—make all these Ministers come in on a Friday and vote? There is some merit in that, isn’t there? Perhaps you do not think so.
Philip Davies
The more involvement you give the Government in this, the less chance that Back Benchers will have any influence over what happens. If you go down that route, and it is a perfectly respectable view to hold, in my opinion you may as well just abolish private Members’ Bills and be done with it. If you want it to be transparent and to show that actually the Government’s in charge, well that’s an argument for abolishing private Members’ Bills altogether. I still actually like the idea that there is an opportunity on a Friday, 13 weeks of the year, for Back Benchers to make a difference to what happens. Ian C. Lucas indicated dissent.
Philip Davies
Well they can. It is no good having me here, claiming that I’ve blocked Bill after Bill after Bill, and then in the same breath saying that Back Benchers, which I am—the ultimate Back Bencher—have no power. Either I’ve got power to influence things or Back Benchers don’t, but you can’t have it both ways.
Ian C. Lucas
They can’t legislate.
Chair
It is an interesting suggestion you make, because it is possible than when our Report is brought forward and it is tabled for debate someone may table an amendment that private Members’ Bills should be scrapped in their entirety—that they no longer serve any identifiable useful purpose. It will then be for the House to decide. You know, Philip, as an experienced politician, we cannot decide anything for the House. We will put forward some proposals and people will decide whether our proposals are acceptable or not, or may amend those proposals, but I think the idea that private Members’ Bills hold some position in Parliament that means they are untouchable, either from reform or from being got rid of, would be mistaken.
Philip Davies
Could I make a suggestion along those lines? What you might want to consider is that you keep the private Member’s Bill slots, but in effect they become a longer version of ten-minute rule slots; so you do not come with something that is ultimately going to be a successful Bill, but you have a great platform to raise an issue, which you hope one day a Government may legislate on in another Bill. You don’t actually pretend at the end of it that there is going to be some legislation, but Back Benchers have a platform to raise issues that can be then considered for future reference. I think that might be a more honest way of achieving, and being honest about, what a private Member’s Bill day can achieve.
Edward Argar
You are, Phil, as ever, as erudite as you are eloquent, although we may not agree on everything. A couple of reflections: how many times in your recollection, over the past Parliament—2010-2015—do you recall on a Friday there being 100-plus Members in for private Members’ business?
Philip Davies
Not many. I honestly don’t know. Obviously there were a lot here for the—
Edward Argar
Assisted dying.
Philip Davies
Well, the European Union (Referendum) Bill twice, I think, in the last Parliament. Over 300 MPs turned up for that; and obviously there was assisted dying in this Parliament. Occasionally there are 100; occasionally there will be—but very occasionally.
Edward Argar
I don’t know—the Clerks may be able to tell us—when the Standing Orders setting the closure motion at 100 were first introduced. What would be your reflection on the suggestion that, given what you have just said, and given that the patterns of life and the role of Members of Parliament have changed even in the past five years, let alone the past 10, 20 or 30, that limit—that number—should be reviewed, in view of the changes to attendance and the changes to the way MPs treat the House, in a sense, in their attendance?
Philip Davies
I don’t think we should pander to people who don’t want to be here when they are supposed to be here. Look, it’s 13 Fridays a year. There are 52 Fridays in a year. It means that MPs can be in their constituencies for 39 other Fridays in a year. We also have very extensive recesses, I might add, when you can be in the constituency every day of the week. The idea that an MP cannot spare 13 Fridays a year to be in Parliament is, I’m afraid, not something that I recognise. I would say I am as hard-working a constituency MP as anybody, and I just do it on other days. I have 13 days, when Parliament is sitting, when I think my constituents should be able to expect me to be doing my duty in Parliament. It is up to an MP to choose. They can be here for an EU referendum Bill if they so choose. They can be here for an assisted dying Bill. The point is, if the MP thinks the Bill is so important, they can be here. If they decide that the Bill isn’t actually that important, that’s a matter for them; but it’s no good them saying, “It’s a really important Bill, but by the way I couldn’t be bothered to turn up for it.” I’m afraid that doesn’t wash with me.
Edward Argar
A final quick one: I’d be grateful for your reflections, Phil, on the point that I put to our three colleagues earlier—I think you were in the Committee Room at the time. Do you feel, with your experience both of the House and of private Members’ Bills, that we as MPs and some of the organisations promoting Bills do not do enough to set realistic expectations among those who support them among the public, as to the procedure and the real chances and what will be achieved by introducing a Bill—that in many cases it won’t become legislation? It will be a good airing of the issue, but we and others do not do enough to be clear about what the process means and the realistic chances of the Bill becoming law.
Philip Davies
Yes, there is an element of that. There is not enough honesty. Actually, people who want to get Bills through could develop a better strategy for getting a Bill through or promoting their agenda, rather than just going down in flames. There are better methods, but I also think that MPs on the whole are not courageous enough about challenging a Bill that has a worthy sentiment behind it but, in practical terms, is not very sensible legislation. MPs agree too easily to support a worthy sentiment and do not want to be seen to be opposing a worthy sentiment, because they know what happens if they do that: they will get thrown at them all the custard pies that I get thrown at me. They see all those custard pies and think, “I don’t want any of those, so I’ll go along with it,” and maybe they hope that some other fool will talk it out—like me. If MPs were a bit more honest about the merits of a Bill, that would be quite helpful.
Chair
Before we go on, I thought I would give a news bulletin. The Speaker claimed the power in February 1881 to move a closure, and the House granted it in Standing Orders in March 1887. That is interesting—for the Procedure Committee, anyway.
Patrick Grady
On the thing about having 100 people, as you said, that was not the case for Nick Thomas-Symonds. There were 15 of us who travelled down from Scotland, because it was a Bill that affected the whole of the UK. There might have been more—we never found out how many folk were there, because there was no vote; the Speaker would not allow the closure. Perhaps if there had been a smarter operation and a closure moved on the previous debate, there would have been time. My real question is about pre-legislative scrutiny. There was a wee bit of chat beforehand about that. How much more sympathetic to a Bill would you or anyone else who has made an effort to talk out Bills or vociferously oppose them be if the Bill were more carefully crafted, if it had demonstrated a range of cross-party support to get on to the Floor of the House in the first place and if there had been public consultation beforehand?
Philip Davies
Yes, I think that would be a good idea. To be perfectly honest—some people round this table will vouch for this—I offer Members my own personal pre-legislative scrutiny on private Members’ Bills, and I make suggestions as to how they might get their agenda moved forward, even if it is not something I totally agree with. I say this in all honesty: if any MP asks to see me about their private Member’s Bill, I will see them and give them advice as to how they can best move their agenda forward, whether through that Bill or not. I do not start out to be unhelpful, but if people do not seek my opinion beforehand, that is their choice. Anything that will iron out some of the practical issues with Bills that start with a worthy sentiment but are impractical would help them to be better Bills—absolutely.
Chair
We are going to wind this up in a minute. I am going to bring Simon in. David, do you want to have a go?
Mr Nuttall
I think we have covered most of it.
Simon Hoare
I have said this on the Floor of the House and am happy to repeat it now. Philip is absolutely right. When it came to my Bill, you did exactly that. I came to see you and said, “I’m in this place. The Government are not in support of it.”
Ian C. Lucas
Did you take him to the Garrick?
Simon Hoare
I did not take him to the Garrick, although I probably should at some point. Thank you, Ian—I shall send you the bill. Your advice, Philip, was the right advice to take, and it has paid dividends because we are hopefully promoting the principle of the Bill, but by a different mechanism than running at the wall, getting a sore head and then—mixing my metaphors—going down in a great shower of sparks and saying, “Aren’t the Government frightful? This idea was marvellous.” I started from a particular view, but the underlying point you were making is apposite: politicians often find it very hard to say no to things that are publicly popular. We are living in the political age of Twitter, where people demand that you attend this and vote this way, that way or the other. Occasionally, we all need to have a little bit more spine and say, “I hear what you say, but I don’t agree with you for these particular reasons. I think this proposal is bad because X.” What you have said has certainly given me food for thought, as a new Member, about the use of sitting Fridays and better management of the expectation of constituents. As you say, there are only 13 in a year. We have a lot of other time to do constituency stuff. I am now running for president of the Philip Davies fan club.
Philip Davies
People don’t understand the procedures, which is where the problem is. They are not reported, or whatever it might be. What often is a big problem is that people don’t understand the merits, or otherwise, of the Bills we are considering—that is the problem. They might think a Bill is all motherhood and apple pie, but if they only realised the downsides of the Bill. The Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill is a prime example. It was billed as free hospital parking for carers, which is how everybody thinks of it, and that is how it was reported in the papers. But nobody reported the fact that it would have benefited only one in six carers, and the other five out of six carers might well have had to pay more for their hospital parking. If the papers had reported the actual truth of the Bill, the reaction to it might have been somewhat different. It is not the procedures that are badly understood by the public; it is often the actual Bill itself.
Chair
Is everybody happy? Would you like to ask a question, Patrick?
Patrick Grady
I did.
Chair
Do you want to ask another question? Is everybody content?
Mr Nuttall
It might be worth mentioning that, of course, some Bills go through the private Member’s Bill procedure without a Second Reading debate. What does our witness think about that lack of democracy and debate? Sometimes, if no one shouts “Object,” a Bill can go into Committee without having a Second Reading debate. Maybe that wouldn’t happen if procedures were changed.
Philip Davies
Yes, I think that is a good point. This is partly on the worthy sentiment thing: if a Bill has a worthy title and a worthy sentiment, it can be nodded through without anybody objecting to it. They daren’t object because they do not want to get a load of abuse for having shouted “object.” It is dangerous to give Bills a Second Reading without any debate. That is a very bad thing to do, even if it might be a good Bill. It is all right saying, “Well, these things can be decided in Committee,” but an amendment might not be selected in Committee or there might not be full time for a debate. In a Third Reading debate you can only talk about what is actually in the Bill; you cannot talk about any other issues related to it. Second Reading is often the best opportunity to set out a wide-ranging view as to what might be right or wrong with the legislation as a whole, in context with other things and all the rest of it. It is dangerous to have Bills that go through with no debate or very little debate on Second Reading. The thing I worry about is that people seem to come to Parliament with the idea, “I have a worthy sentiment here, and therefore the Bill is entitled to go through with barely any scrutiny.” And if anybody does try to scrutinise that Bill, everyone is up in arms about it. I do not understand why, just because it is a worthy sentiment, they think it should therefore be nodded through and rushed through without proper scrutiny. I am afraid that too many people seem to think that they are entitled to have their Bills nodded through because they have a worthy sentiment behind them.
Chair
Thank you, Mr Davies. I am sorry that we can only give you 33 minutes, but thank you for taking plenty of interventions. You have the rare skill of blending being a first class pain in the neck and being a very likable person. You know that I am extremely fond of you, however much I want to nail you on this. Anyway, Philip, thanks very much for coming.
Philip Davies
Thank you for inviting me.
Chair
Thank you for being so open and honest in your evidence. Oral evidence: Private Members’ bills, HC 684 20 [1]Note by the witness: I did raise the question of my Bill at PMQs on 9 September, however it was clear that the Prime Minister misunderstood my Question. Once the Bill was published I sent a copy to him, explaining, but received no response.