The House of Commons Procedure Committee, chaired by Tory MP Charles Walker, has suggested several important changes to the way Parliament operates to try to make it more logical and accessible.
One idea is that there might be some form of vote allowing bills which command wide support to be brought forward, with some priority for debate (any MP can put down a Bill on any subject - the trick is to get priority for debating time, which is currently allocated by "ballot," which is parliament-speak for a lottery).
This would be a logical extension of the re-empowerment of the Commons which began in the backwash of the expenses scandal
They also suggest that the government would be required to produce a statement giving its view of any Bill set down for second reading, and that it should be possible to ask the House to move the third reading of a private member's bill to prime time, both of which would make the process a bit more sensible.
I would like to see all these ideas given more attention. It might also help the public to see and understand what is going on if MPs who were trying to kill a proposal did so more often by voting it down openly rather than "talking it out" by speaking for longer than was necessary on it, or indeed talking for a little bit longer than was necessary on the previous measure so there wasn't enough time left after the previous bill has gone through.
Intersting article by Mark D'Arcy on the subject on the BBC website here.
One idea is that there might be some form of vote allowing bills which command wide support to be brought forward, with some priority for debate (any MP can put down a Bill on any subject - the trick is to get priority for debating time, which is currently allocated by "ballot," which is parliament-speak for a lottery).
This would be a logical extension of the re-empowerment of the Commons which began in the backwash of the expenses scandal
They also suggest that the government would be required to produce a statement giving its view of any Bill set down for second reading, and that it should be possible to ask the House to move the third reading of a private member's bill to prime time, both of which would make the process a bit more sensible.
I would like to see all these ideas given more attention. It might also help the public to see and understand what is going on if MPs who were trying to kill a proposal did so more often by voting it down openly rather than "talking it out" by speaking for longer than was necessary on it, or indeed talking for a little bit longer than was necessary on the previous measure so there wasn't enough time left after the previous bill has gone through.
Intersting article by Mark D'Arcy on the subject on the BBC website here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment