Proceeding contribution from Mark Lazarowicz (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on Legislative Process.
Legislative Process
That is a good point. Clearly if there was an overwhelming international or national crisis, Parliament would be recalled, but the longer the recess, the less likely it is that hon. Members will be able to raise issues in Parliament in a relatively timeous and speedy fashion. The opportunity to table written questions is better than nothing, but it is not the same as having the opportunity to raise issues in the Chamber. If that logic were carried through to its ultimate conclusion, we could sit one day a week and spend the rest of the time tabling written questions. Some hon. Members might like that, but I do not think that it is the right way forward. Another aspect of the physical presence of Members at Westminster is the informal contact. One knows more about what is going on because one is here. London Members or those close to circles of power may be able to keep in touch, but what if one is not in that fortunate situation? During the summer recess, one is way out of touch with what is going on in the centres of power. We are not always in touch when we are here in the House, but we have more chance to take part in the more nebulous type of policy debate and holding the Government to account if we are actually here, not in our constituencies. As I said, the September sitting arrangements are not perfect. I would prefer to have a slightly shorter sitting week, so that we could spend more time on Mondays and Fridays in our constituencies, and to sit for more weeks, instead of a situation in which for three months of the year we are hardly in Parliament and for eight months—apart from weekends—we are hardly in our constituencies. It would be good to have a better mix between being in Parliament and being in our constituencies, so that we could pick up on the feelings of our constituents about issues and raise them in the Chamber if we chose to do so. The present arrangements are not perfect, and I respect the sincerity of the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West and for Lewisham, Deptford about the need for a fundamental look at how the parliamentary calendar operates. However, I support the amendment in favour of retaining some form of September sitting because I do not think that we will ever get any other solution if we get rid of it now. The idea will disappear into the sunset, and there will be no change of any sort for decades to come. We should not get rid of September sittings and then look for a better system for the entire year. Instead, we should come up with a better system for the entire year first, and then talk about changing the sittings in September. In the meantime, instead of having a three-month gap between leaving this place and returning, we have an opportunity to come back a bit earlier. We must not give that up.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 451 c378-9
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Debates Legislative process House of Commons Public bills Members Parliamentary procedure Parliamentary scrutiny Public participation Modernisation Reform Select committees Allocation of time motions European standing committees Standing committees Sub judice rule Standing orders Time limits on speeches
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 21:10:38 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357344
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357344
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357344