Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Bernard Jenkin (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 22 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on Report from the House of Commons Reform Committee on Rebuilding the House.


Report from the House of Commons Reform Committee on Rebuilding the House

I very much welcome many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), although what he said amplifies how this debate can become a Christmas tree on which everybody hangs their particular enthusiasms for what they might call parliamentary reform. I think that our debate must concentrate on the report before us and on what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has presented to us this afternoon, which provides a great opportunity to take a modest but extremely significant step. All parties, including the Committee itself, have described our response to the expenses scandal as being necessary but not sufficient to wider reform; it will be sufficient only if we reform Parliament itself. Even you, Mr. Speaker, made the reform of the House of Commons part of the platform for your election. The fact that all party leaders have essentially embraced the re-empowerment of Parliament as an essential part of that reform enjoins us to give a hearty welcome to the Committee's report. By far the most important issue before the House is control of the timetable of business. As any A-level politics student will know, the degree to which the Government control the Commons timetable is the degree to which they control the House itself. I was extremely taken by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who reminded us that what used to be one of the key weapons of opposition in the House—available not just to the Opposition, but to Government Members as well—was the opportunity to delay by extending the time of scrutiny for a measure. That is why I was so taken by the point that this categorical assurance about the time-in and the time-out is perhaps given too lightly. That is where we are at the moment, however, so we should still welcome the proposals.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
506 c94 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
House of Commons Democracy Public bills Members Parliamentary procedure Parliamentary scrutiny Politics and government Reform Select committees Whips Backbenchers Paper petitions e-petitions
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk